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 this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by explaining the two states: all providers connected returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], while missing credentials returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides concrete details without redundancy. It is an appropriately concise and well-structured description.
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 and lack of an output schema, the description effectively covers the main use cases and return states. It explains what is returned when all providers are connected and when credentials are missing, which is sufficient for a status-checking tool.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The empty schema fully covers this, and no additional explanation is needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no extra need, so a 5 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 returns connection status and URLs, with specific behavior for all-connected and missing-credential cases. It is specific about the resource and verb, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like authenticate.
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 used to check connection status and obtain URLs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Context is present but not framed as 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: authentication, connectivity status, credit consultation, MCP catalog, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. Even though authenticate and connect both deal with access, their functions are separate and unambiguous.
Tool names are inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), and underscore-separated compounds with varying patterns (credito_pf_consultar, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). There is no uniform verb_noun or noun_verb convention.
While seven tools is not excessive, the count is inappropriate for the server's stated purpose of credit analysis. Six of the seven tools are generic platform utilities (auth, connect, marketplace, bug reporting, version, toolkit state) that dilute the domain-specific focus. Only one tool actually performs credit analysis.
The core credit consultation operation is covered by credito_pf_consultar, but there are no additional credit-domain operations. The rest of the tools are platform-level, not domain-specific. The surface feels thin for a server named 'Análise de Crédito PF', leaving no further credit-related capabilities.