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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing response behavior: returns authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect without contradicting 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by precise conditional details. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, with no redundancy or irrelevant 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?
The description adequately covers the two primary states (all connected vs. credentials missing) and indicates the response shape. However, it does not address partial connection states (e.g., some providers connected, others not), leaving a small ambiguity. Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.
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 of 4 applies. The schema already covers all parameter information (100% coverage with no properties), and the description does not need to explain any parameters. No additional parameter context is required.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the resource ('connection status and URLs'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than authentication itself. The two conditional outcomes are explicitly described, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 this tool (checking connection status and getting URLs), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'authenticate'. There is no direct recommendation or exclusion (e.g., 'use this before calling authenticate'), so context is only implied.
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 are clearly distinct, but connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace overlap on connection/status and installed MCP information. The sole domain-specific tool (cnpj_cadastral_consultar) is unambiguous.
Names mix English and Portuguese, verbs and nouns, and underscore styles (e.g., authenticate vs report_bug vs cnpj_cadastral_consultar). No consistent pattern is followed.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but six are platform-management utilities unrelated to the 'Cadastro PJ Básico' domain. The only domain-specific tool is a single query, making the set feel padded.
For its stated purpose, the CNPJ basic registration lookup is covered by one tool, but there are no additional operations like validation or search. The platform tools are extensive but unrelated to the domain label.