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 state-dependent behavior (all connected vs. missing credentials) that annotations do not cover. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds valuable context about return values and conditions without contradicting the safety profile.
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 primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place: one states the overall function, the other details conditional responses. No waste.
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 and missing credentials) but leaves a slight gap for partial connection states. Without an output schema, this is a small omission, but the overall behavior is clear enough for a simple read-only status tool with zero parameters.
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 is 4. The description is not required to explain parameters, and none are present. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 'Returns connection status and URLs,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication.
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 on when to use this tool (e.g., to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing). While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the behavioral conditions communicate its use case effectively, and the sibling 'authenticate' implies the alternative.
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 reports connection status, cpf_receita_consultar does the actual CPF lookup. However, connect and toolkit_info both touch connection status, and authenticate/connect have some overlap, which could cause minor confusion.
Naming is inconsistent: English and Portuguese are mixed (cpf_receita_consultar vs. report_bug), some names are verbs (authenticate, connect) while others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses snake_case while others don't follow a clear pattern.
At 7 tools, the count is reasonable and within the typical well-scoped range. However, the server is named for CPF/Receita Federal but has only one domain-specific tool, with the rest being generic platform utilities, making the set feel slightly imbalanced for its stated purpose.
The CPF consultation tool provides basic lookup capability, but the domain surface is thin—there's no validation, batch, or historical querying. The marketplace tool mitigates this by allowing access to other MCPs, but for a server dedicated to CPF/Receita, the coverage is incomplete.