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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds concrete behavioral detail about response states, including authenticated:true with empty pending[] and connect_url when credentials are missing, which goes beyond the annotations.
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?
Two tight sentences, with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') front-loaded and the two key response states succinctly described. No filler and no repetition of information already present in the annotations or schema.
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 no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description covers the primary response scenarios. However, it leaves some ambiguity about intermediate states (e.g., partial provider connection) and the exact structure of the URLs, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids any parameter discussion because parameters do not exist.
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 specifies the exact action ('Returns connection status and URLs') and clarifies that 'connect' is a read-only status check rather than an action that initiates a connection. The conditional response states distinguish it from sibling tools like authenticate, which presumably performs 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 provides conditional context ('When all providers are connected... When credentials are missing...') which implies it is for checking connection state, but it never explicitly says when to use connect over authenticate or any other sibling. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.
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.
The calculo_* tools are mostly distinct by legal domain, but calculo_atualizar is a generic monetary-correction tool that overlaps with correction logic built into calculo_pensao, calculo_aluguel, and calculo_fgts. The platform tools like connect and toolkit_info are distinct but sit awkwardly alongside the calculators.
The legal calculators consistently use a calculo_ prefix in snake_case, but suffixes mix verbs, nouns, adjectives, and acronyms. The six meta tools break the pattern entirely with bare names like connect, marketplace, and report_bug.
22 tools is already on the heavy side, but the scope mismatch is severe: a server named 'Cálculo de Pensão Alimentícia' exposes 16 calculators for unrelated legal areas plus 6 platform administration tools. Only calculo_pensao directly matches the server name, making the count feel inflated and unfocused.
For the stated child-support purpose, the surface is incomplete: calculo_pensao covers only arrears and lacks clear support for prospective alimony calculation, modification/review, or enforcement scenarios. If viewed as a general legal calculator suite, it is broad but still has notable gaps, and the narrow server name makes those gaps more glaring.