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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context about the response format in two scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs), 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, then a conditional breakdown. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with no extraneous detail. Structurally clear and efficient.
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?
Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is complete for a status-check tool. It covers the two main scenarios a user would encounter, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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, the schema provides no input semantics. The description explains the tool's behavior independent of parameters, aligning with the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters. It adds meaning by describing what the tool returns without requiring any input.
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's function: returning connection status and URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status check rather than authentication. The conditional output scenarios (connected vs missing credentials) add specificity.
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 context on when this tool is relevant: when all providers are connected vs when credentials are missing. It implies usage for status checking but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like authenticate. However, the conditional behavior clarifies when to expect certain outputs.
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 clear primary purpose: authentication, data consultation, connection status, marketplace discovery, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. The only slight overlap is between connect (connection status) and toolkit_info (connection status plus installed MCPs), which could cause minor misselection but is mitigated by detailed descriptions.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use a verb (authenticate, connect), some use noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool car_download_shapefile_consultar mixes a long domain prefix with an action suffix. There is no uniform convention, making it harder to predict tool names.
Seven tools exist, but only one (car_download_shapefile_consultar) actually serves the server's stated purpose of downloading CAR shapefiles. The remaining six are generic platform utilities, leaving the domain-specific functionality extremely thin for the apparent scope.
The single domain tool appears to handle the core query/download operation, but there are no supporting tools for listing available datasets, filtering by region, or validating inputs, which would be expected for a shapefile download service. Agents will likely need to rely on the marketplace tool to fill gaps, indicating an incomplete surface.