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 and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it specifies the exact response in connected state (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and in missing-credentials state (connect_url and per-install URLs). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate outcomes.
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 concise: three short sentences that front-load the main purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') and then provide conditional details. Every sentence contributes distinct information without redundancy.
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 the two primary states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and mentions the return of URLs. It does not address partial connection scenarios or fully define what 'pending' contains, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), there is no parameter information to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema is complete and there are no parameters to explain.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling 'authenticate' tool, which likely performs authentication rather than reporting status. The purpose is 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 usage through conditional behavior ('When all providers are connected... When credentials are missing...'), which suggests when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this to check status before authenticating' or contrast with alternatives such as 'authenticate'.
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 distinct primary purpose, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, creating slight overlap. The rest are clearly separated by function.
Naming is highly inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), snake_case compounds (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese-language tool (cadin_sp_consultar) are mixed without any unifying pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the server is named after a specific domain (CADIN São Paulo) while containing only one domain-specific tool and six generic platform tools, making the overall scope feel unfocused and bloated relative to the name.
The CADIN-specific surface is severely limited to a single consultation tool, with no additional operations like status checking or history. The platform management side is fairly complete, but the stated domain lacks meaningful coverage.