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 and destructiveHint, but the description goes further by revealing the actual response structure (authenticated boolean, pending array, connect_url) and how it varies by connection state. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.
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 core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') followed by conditional details. Every sentence provides distinct, essential information with no redundancy or filler.
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-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the primary behavior and return value structure. However, it only describes two states (all connected vs credentials missing) and does not mention partial connectivity or error cases, which could be a slight gap.
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 does not need to explain parameter usage. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description focuses on return values, which is appropriate.
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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the exact output in different scenarios (authenticated:true when all providers connected, connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials are missing), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate that likely perform authentication actions.
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 to use the tool by outlining the response under different credential states, implying it is used to check connectivity status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like authenticate, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.
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 tools are mostly distinct, but there is overlap between 'authenticate' and 'connect' (login vs status), and 'report_bug' duplicates functionality already inside 'marketplace'. The overloaded 'marketplace' tool bundles many sub-actions, making it harder to distinguish when to use it versus the dedicated tools.
Naming is inconsistent: English verbs ('authenticate', 'connect', 'report_bug', 'show_version') mix with noun-based names ('marketplace', 'toolkit_info') and a Portuguese snake_case domain tool ('cpf_cadastral_consultar'). No clear pattern is maintained across the set.
At 7 tools, the count is numerically reasonable, but only one tool ('cpf_cadastral_consultar') relates to the server's stated purpose. The other six are generic platform utilities that should likely live in a separate server, making the scope feel bloated for a 'Cadastro PF Básico' service.
The CPF domain surface is severely minimal: just a single consultation tool. There are no additional CPF-related operations (e.g., validation, formatting, status history), and the rest of the tools are unrelated to the domain, leaving the server incomplete as a focused CPF toolset.