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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the exact return payloads in different conditions, which is beyond the annotations. It does not describe partial connection states, but overall adds meaningful 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 two sentences long, starts with the main purpose, and every sentence provides concrete details. There is no 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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors well: successful connection and missing credentials. It leaves out the intermediate case of partially connected providers, which is a minor gap. Annotations handle the rest.
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 accepts zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered by default. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to add parameter-specific semantics.
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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'connection status and URLs'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on status checking rather than actions like authenticate. The two detailed output scenarios further clarify the tool's purpose.
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 for when the tool is relevant by describing the two states: all providers connected vs credentials missing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.
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 tool set is a confusing mix of generic platform operations (marketplace, connect, toolkit_info, report_bug, show_version, authenticate) and one domain-specific tool (car_ambiental_rural_consultar). Several platform tools have overlapping or unclear boundaries: marketplace also lists installed tools, overlapping with toolkit_info; authenticate and connect both deal with authentication status. The single CAR tool stands out as unrelated to the rest, making it hard for an agent to know which tool to pick for a given task.
Tool naming is highly inconsistent: mixed languages (English 'authenticate', Portuguese 'car_ambiental_rural_consultar'), mixed casing (camelCase 'authenticate', 'marketplace' versus snake_case 'car_ambiental_rural_consultar', and multi-word compounds 'show_version', 'toolkit_info', 'report_bug'). There is no discernible verb_noun pattern or consistent style across the set.
While 7 tools is a reasonable count for a typical server, this server is named 'CAR' but only one of the seven tools actually relates to CAR. The other six are generic platform administration tools that would be expected in a completely different server (e.g., an MCP.AI toolkit management server). The count is thus inappropriate for the server's stated domain, as the majority of tools are out of place.
For a server ostensibly about CAR (Cadastro Ambiental Rural), the only domain tool is a single consult operation. There is no coverage for other plausible CAR workflows (e.g., listing properties, updating data, or exporting information). The remaining platform tools are unrelated to CAR, so the domain surface is severely incomplete. Even if the intended scope is solely 'consult,' the presence of many unrelated tools makes the completeness of the set as a whole poor.