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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful context about the outcome states (authenticated:true vs connect_url). It discloses what the return values mean, going beyond the generic safety hints, though it doesn't describe every possible field in the response.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then conditional details. No filler or repetition of schema/annotations. Every sentence adds value about behavior and output.
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 status tool with no output schema and no parameters, the description provides enough detail about the two primary states. However, it could be more complete about the exact structure of 'per-install URLs' or the pending array, but given the simplicity and good annotations, it is adequately complete.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to compensate for parameter documentation, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It doesn't add parameter-level detail since there are none, which 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 clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from sibling 'authenticate' which likely initiates authentication. It specifies a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'), and the conditional behavior further clarifies what it 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 provides clear context about when it returns different results (e.g., when credentials are missing), which implies its use case as a status check. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as saying 'use authenticate for establishing connections.'
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.
Tools like authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all relate to connection/auth status, which could cause selection confusion. Meanwhile, marketplace is an extremely broad multi-action tool that overlaps conceptually with install and configure functions, though its description is detailed.
Naming is inconsistent: single-word tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) mix with verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version), while cadin_estadual_consultar and toolkit_info do not follow a predictable style. This lack of a consistent convention makes the tool set feel disjointed.
With 7 tools, the count is within the typical well-scoped range. However, the mixture of platform management utilities and a single domain-specific query function makes the overall scope ambiguous, slightly reducing the appropriateness.
Given the server name 'CADIN Estadual', the tool surface is severely incomplete—there is only one query function with no support for listing states, bulk queries, or managing query history. If the intent is a platform management server, the marketplace tool covers many operations, but the naming suggests a domain-specific service, leaving major gaps.