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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful conditional behavior beyond these annotations, explaining exactly what happens when providers are connected (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and when credentials are missing (connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs). This is valuable, non-redundant context.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and then adds necessary conditional details. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words or repetition of annotation data.
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 simple read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all relevant behavior (both connected and missing-credential states) and is fully complete in context. The enriched annotations and clear description make additional details unnecessary.
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 baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the schema coverage is trivially 100% since there are no properties.
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' and clearly identifies the resource ('connection status and URLs'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by explaining that this tool checks status rather than performing authentication. The conditional outcomes add clarity about what the tool does.
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 usage context: checking connection status and determining if authentication is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The sibling names provide obvious context, but the description itself does not reference them.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, beneficios_sociais_consultar queries benefits, others handle platform status and actions. However, 'marketplace' is a multi-purpose tool that combines search, describe, invoke, install, etc., which could be confusing for an agent deciding which action to use.
Tool names show mixed conventions: simple verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), a noun (marketplace), a noun phrase (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese snake_case phrase (beneficios_sociais_consultar). No consistent verb_noun or camelCase pattern is followed.
7 tools is within a typical count, but only one tool (beneficios_sociais_consultar) is domain-specific. The other six are generic platform utilities (marketplace, connect, report_bug, etc.) that do not belong in a server dedicated to social benefits, making the set feel bloated and off-purpose.
The core query tool covers the main need of consulting consolidated social benefits for a CPF, which might be sufficient for a read-only public information service. However, the server lacks any supplementary benefit-related operations (e.g., historical queries, filters) and the platform tools do not contribute to domain coverage, leaving the overall surface thin.