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 and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral details on return values (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url). This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 main purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every clause earns its place.
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 zero-param, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key states and returned fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). It is sufficiently complete for this simple tool, though it could have included a note about response format or error conditions.
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 no parameters and coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per rubric, 0 params earns baseline 4; the description does not need to elaborate on parameter 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 clearly states 'Returns connection status and URLs' and explains the conditional outcomes for connected vs missing credentials. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which likely performs authentication rather than status checking.
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 the tool is for checking connection/auth status and provides clear context about when its output is relevant, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. The context is clear enough without explicit alternative guidance.
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 clear distinct purposes: cnd_federal_consultar is the only domain-specific tool, while others handle authentication, connection status, marketplace, feedback, version, and toolkit overview. The main overlap is between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info', which both report connection status, but they serve slightly different scopes (provider connections vs. overall toolkit state).
Naming is inconsistent: most tools are lowercase snake_case (e.g., report_bug, show_version), but some are single words (authenticate, connect, marketplace). The domain tool 'cnd_federal_consultar' is in Portuguese while everything else is English, breaking consistency. The mix of verbs and nouns further weakens any predictable pattern.
Seven tools is within the ideal range, but the server is named 'CND Federal' yet contains only one tool related to that domain; the other six are general platform management tools (marketplace, toolkit_info, etc.). This makes the set feel over-scoped for the apparent purpose, though the total count is acceptable.
For the CND lookup function, the single tool covers the core need (query by CPF/CNPJ), but there are no additional operations like validation, history, or credit checks. The broader platform tools provide substantial coverage for the marketplace, but they are unrelated to the CND domain, leaving the CND surface minimal and potentially incomplete for a dedicated CND service.