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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains what the return payload looks like in different scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url). This goes well beyond the structured hints.
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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds distinct information without any filler or 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?
For a simple status-check tool with no parameters and good annotations, the description covers the main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and the corresponding outputs. No significant gaps are apparent.
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 fully covers parameter semantics. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details.
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 'Returns connection status and URLs', a specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'authenticate', though the purpose is distinct enough.
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 when to use the tool by describing conditional outputs (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), but it never explicitly states 'use this to check connection status' or mentions any alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than direct.
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 distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, connect shows connection status, marketplace handles discovery and invocation, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays versions, toolkit_info shows installed MCPs. The single domain tool caf_agricultura_pj_consultar is clearly separate. Minor overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info (both touch connection status), but descriptions clarify their roles.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are bare verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace), some are snake_case verb_noun (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and one is a long Portuguese domain-specific name (caf_agricultura_pj_consultar). There is no unified pattern or verb style across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a general platform toolkit. However, the server name suggests a CAF-specific domain, yet only one tool is actually CAF-related; the rest are generic platform utilities. The count itself is fine, but the scope is slightly mismatched with the server's title.
The platform tooling is fairly complete: authentication, connection status, marketplace search/run, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state cover common needs. The CAF domain has a single query tool, which may be sufficient for a simple lookup, but lacks any additional operations like batch queries or listing categories. Minor gaps, but no critical dead ends.