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 the tool safe (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds valuable context about response states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, connect_url and per-install URLs when missing credentials), going beyond the structured metadata.
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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence earns its place, making it a model of concise writing.
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 status tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns and under what conditions. It is complete for the tool's complexity and leaves no critical gaps.
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 description has no parameter responsibilities. Per the rubric, baseline is 4; the description appropriately doesn't invent parameter details.
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 states the tool 'Returns connection status and URLs' with a specific verb and resource. It also details conditional behavior (connected vs missing credentials), making it distinct from siblings like authenticate.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: it describes what the tool does but doesn't say 'Use this to check connection status' or contrast with authenticate. The sibling tool list suggests a clearer distinction could be made, but it's still inferable.
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 clearly distinct roles: authenticate handles login, connect shows status, cnia_improbidade_consultar does the actual CNIA lookup, and the rest are meta/utility tools. The only mild overlap is between authenticate and connect, but their descriptions differentiate them adequately.
Naming is inconsistent across languages and styles: English verbs (authenticate, connect), Portuguese verb_noun (cnia_improbidade_consultar), and noun-based names (marketplace, toolkit_info). The mix of snake_case and lowercase without a clear convention makes the set feel ad hoc.
At 7 tools, the count is reasonable, but the set is heavily skewed toward platform/meta tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) with only one domain-specific CNIA tool. This feels over-inflated for a dedicated CNIA server, yet the total number is not excessive.
The core domain operation of querying CNIA by CPF/CNPJ is covered, and no additional CNIA-specific actions are obviously needed for a simple lookup. However, the server's broader scope as a marketplace and toolkit means the CNIA surface is minimal, and there are no bulk or advanced query options.