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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds valuable behavioral specifics beyond this: the state-dependent response with 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' when connected, and the presence of 'connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs' when credentials are missing. It does not contradict 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, both information-dense and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every clause adds value by describing expected states and outputs, with no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.
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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is quite complete: it explains the two main states and their corresponding return values. It does not cover partial connectivity scenarios, but this is a minor gap for a status-check tool of this complexity.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters and correctly focuses on the behavior and return values, which are more relevant for this stateless status check.
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 with specific verbs and resources: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than the authentication action itself, and it details the conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) that determine the output.
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 useful: to check if all providers are connected or to retrieve connect URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use instead of authenticate,' but the scenario-based explanation implies its role as a status/readiness check, which is enough 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 roles: authenticate handles login, marketplace handles discovery/execution, report_bug handles feedback, etc. However, connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, which could cause some confusion.
Naming convention is highly inconsistent. The domain tool uses Portuguese snake_case (cnh_situacao_consultar), while others use English verbs (authenticate, connect) or nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). No consistent verb_noun pattern exists.
With 7 tools, only one is domain-specific (cnh_situacao_consultar); the other six are generic platform utilities. The count feels bloated for the stated CNH purpose and under-invests in the actual domain functionality.
The CNH domain is covered only by a single consultation tool, with no additional operations or complementary features. The platform tools are unrelated to CNH, leaving the domain surface severely thin for a server named 'Situação da CNH'.