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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true and idempotentHint:true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing the response behavior in different states (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), including the 'pending[]' array and connect_url. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
The description is just two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or padding, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.
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?
The description covers two states (all connected and credentials missing) but does not explicitly address partial connection states or clarify the contents of the 'pending' array beyond being empty. Given there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to explain, the description need not add parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Returns' with resource 'connection status and URLs', and further elaborates on conditional outcomes (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url responses). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'toolkit_info'.
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 the tool is for checking connection status and obtaining URLs when credentials are missing, which is useful contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
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.
The core query tool and platform utilities are distinct, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status and could confuse an agent. The marketplace tool is multi-functional but clearly scoped. Overall, purposes are mostly separable.
Names mix English and Portuguese (authenticate vs. beneficiario_final_consultar) and use inconsistent patterns: verb (connect, authenticate), noun (marketplace), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version). The Portuguese tool reverses the typical verb_noun order.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but most are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated purpose of beneficiary final queries. The core domain is served by a single tool, while the rest feel bolted on.
For the beneficiary final domain, the single query tool covers the basic use case, but there are no supporting operations like batch queries, history, or credit management. The platform tools are general but don't address domain-specific needs, leaving the surface incomplete for a dedicated compliance service.