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 read-only and idempotent hints, and the description adds valuable context about response variations: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing. This explains state-dependent behavior beyond the structured 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by conditional details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.
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 no output schema, the description explains return values (status and URLs) and covers the two main scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials). It doesn't detail what 'pending' means or provide sample outputs, but for a simple read-only status tool, this is largely sufficient.
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?
No parameters exist, so the description doesn't need to explain any. The empty schema covers all parameters, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's functionality rather than parameter details.
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 returns connection status and URLs, with specific details about response states. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status retrieval rather than initiating authentication, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 usage for checking connection status and retrieving URLs when needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. authenticate or other siblings. The behavior descriptions for different states provide some context, but no direct guidance.
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 distinct purposes, but marketplace's ability to find MCPs for CPF queries overlaps with credito_negativo_consultar, and authenticate/connect both deal with authentication states, requiring careful reading of descriptions to avoid misselection.
Tool names mix English verbs, nouns, and a Portuguese compound phrase, with inconsistent patterns like bare verbs (authenticate, connect), noun-only (marketplace), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version) alongside noun-based names (toolkit_info). This lacks a coherent convention.
7 tools is within a reasonable range, but the marketplace tool is a mega-tool covering many sub-actions (search, invoke, install, etc.) that could be split for clarity. Still, the count itself is not excessive.
The server's stated purpose (negative credit detail) is covered by only one tool (credito_negativo_consultar), while the remaining tools are generic platform utilities. Missing domain-specific operations such as report history, dispute handling, or credit limit management leave significant gaps.