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?
The description discloses the two possible outcomes (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) and what each returns (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs). This provides good insight into behavior, though it could be more detailed about potential side effects (none expected given readOnly hint).
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 concise, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and two main scenarios. No unnecessary fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and to the point.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and the distinct outcomes, which is sufficient for an agent to determine when and how to use it. No further context is needed.
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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is complete (100%). There is nothing to explain; the description does not need to add parameter details. This is trivially sufficient.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate (which performs authentication) and toolkit_info (which provides general info). The two specific return cases further clarify its purpose.
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 status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to call 'connect' vs 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'). It lacks explicit usage guidance, though the purpose is clear enough for a simple status check.
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.
The one domain tool, comprot_processo_consultar, is clearly distinct, but authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info overlap around connection/auth status. The marketplace tool also absorbs behaviors (report_bug, list_tools, install) that partially duplicate standalone tools, creating boundary confusion despite detailed descriptions.
Tool names mix styles: English verbs (authenticate, connect), noun-only names (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb-noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), and one Portuguese snake_case domain tool (comprot_processo_consultar). There is no uniform convention, making the set feel inconsistent.
Seven tools is not excessive, but the set bundles a single actual domain/query tool with a generic MCP platform shell dominated by marketplace and connection utilities. The count is workable, yet the packaging feels unfocused for a server named 'Comprot: Processo'.
The platform side is reasonably covered: authentication, connection status, marketplace-based install/invoke, version, bug reporting, and toolkit state are all present. However, the Processo domain itself is reduced to one generic consult tool, with no explicit support for related case actions or follow-ups.