Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses response shapes based on connection state (all connected vs credentials missing), which adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. However, it doesn't address partial connection states or error scenarios.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with a clear structure: what it returns and outcome variants. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description covers core behavior and key response cases. Gaps: partial connection states and what 'per-install URLs' exactly means, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool takes 0 parameters. Schema is empty and coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies since no params need explanation. Description adds no param info but not needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Returns connection status and URLs' with specific conditional outcomes. It distinguishes from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status reporting rather than action, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to check connection status or get connect URL) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Context is clear but exclusions are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct function: authentication, the BACEN query, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit state. There is no overlap in their purposes despite the marketplace tool's long description.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), and one is snake_case with a reversed order (bacen_proibidos_consultar). This mixing of conventions makes naming unpredictable.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but six of them are platform-level utilities unrelated to the server's stated BACEN domain. The count feels inflated for a dedicated 'Proibidos BACEN' server, though it is not excessive.
The BACEN consultation is a simple query with no obvious missing CRUD operations, but the platform tools could benefit from additional management features (e.g., logout or billing details). The domain coverage is adequate but not exhaustive.