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 bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context about the two return states (authenticated with empty pending[] vs connect_url when credentials missing), which is useful beyond 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 concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and efficiently explain both return scenarios. No redundant wording.
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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers both primary states (all connected vs credentials missing) and what the caller should expect in each.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 'Returns connection status and URLs', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing 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 implies when to use the tool (to check connection status) and explains expected states, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'authenticate' or state when not to use it. Context is present but exclusions are missing.
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 function: authentication, CARF lookup, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version, and toolkit info. There is slight overlap between connect and toolkit_info regarding status, but descriptions clarify their different outputs.
Naming is inconsistent: verbs like authenticate, connect, and report_bug; nouns like marketplace and toolkit_info; and a mixed carf_consultar with Portuguese. No consistent pattern across tools.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a server that handles both CARF queries and platform administration. The scope is broad but each tool serves a distinct purpose, and the count is not excessive.
The CARF consultation tool covers the core function of checking processes by CPF/CNPJ. The platform tools cover authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery and invocation, version, bug reporting, and toolkit state, which appears sufficient for managing MCP integration. No critical gaps are evident.