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=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds state-dependent behavior: 'authenticated:true with empty pending[]' when all connected, and 'connect_url' when credentials are missing. This provides helpful context beyond what annotations offer, with no contradictions.
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, straight to the point. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second explains the two key behavioral cases. No fluff or redundancy.
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 covers the two main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and the return values for each. It doesn't explicitly address partial connection, but for a simple read-only status tool with zero parameters, this is sufficient. No output schema exists, so the description's return-value details help fill that 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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately adds no parameter-specific detail because none exist.
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 identifies the resource ('connection status and URLs'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than creating or modifying connections.
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 clearly implies usage: use this tool when needing connection status or connect URLs. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context makes it obvious when this is the appropriate choice, as opposed to tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace'.
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.
Some tools overlap in purpose, particularly connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, while authenticate handles login. The marketplace tool is a large catch-all that could be confused with platform management, but its detailed description helps distinguish it.
Tool names are inconsistent: some use verb-only (authenticate, connect), some use verb_noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a Portuguese descriptive phrase (cpf_cadastral_plus_consultar). The mix of languages and conventions makes the set feel chaotic.
With 7 tools, the count is within the typical well-scoped range. However, only one tool actually relates to the server's stated CPF consultation purpose, while the rest are generic platform utilities, making the set feel slightly over-inclusive.
The core CPF consultation workflow is covered (authenticate, connect, consult), but there are no other CPF-specific operations such as batch consultation, validation, or historical queries. The inclusion of many platform-management tools doesn't fill these domain gaps.