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?
Despite annotations already declaring readOnly and idempotent hints, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: it explains the exact return shape for two scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials), including the 'authenticated' flag, 'pending' list, and 'connect_url'. This goes beyond the annotations and provides valuable runtime 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 only two sentences, tightly packed with useful information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and expands on the behavior without any 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?
With no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent can expect in the response, including the two key states and the URL fields. Combined with the rich annotations, the tool is fully specified for a simple status-check operation.
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, and the schema coverage is 100% with no properties. The description adds no parameter info because none is needed. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than performing authentication.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to check connection state), and contrasts with the need to authenticate when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient to infer when this tool is appropriate.
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 has a clearly distinct function: authentication, the specific Bolsa Família query, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit info. There is slight overlap between `connect` and `toolkit_info` regarding connection status, but descriptions clarify their different scopes.
Tool names mix languages and conventions: English verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), snake_case Portuguese (`bolsa_familia_consultar`), single-word nouns (`marketplace`), and verb_noun in English (`report_bug`, `show_version`). This inconsistency makes the naming pattern unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the scope is muddled: six tools are generic MCP.AI platform operations while only one is specific to the 'Bolsa Família' domain. This mismatch makes the count feel bloated for the apparent purpose of a benefits query server.
If the domain is Bolsa Família, the surface is severely incomplete (only a single consult operation, no eligibility or benefit details). If the domain is the mcp.ai platform, it is fairly complete (auth, marketplace, toolkit, feedback, version), but the server name suggests otherwise. Notable gaps exist under either interpretation.