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 adds meaningful state-dependent behavior beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations: it specifies that authenticated:true and empty pending[] are returned when all providers are connected, and connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This provides context not present in the annotations, though it does not disclose potential partial-connection states.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, the first stating the core purpose and the second providing conditional details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the two primary output states. It is slightly vague on partial connection states (e.g., when some providers are connected but not all), but it gives enough information for an agent to understand the tool's function and expected return values.
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%. With no parameters to describe, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly avoids adding unnecessary 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 'Returns connection status and URLs' with a specific verb and resource. It elaborates on two distinct output scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose and distinguishing it from the sibling 'authenticate' tool.
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 but does not explicitly identify when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided; the guidance is inferred from the output descriptions rather than stated.
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 credit consultation tool is distinct, but the presence of generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) alongside it creates context confusion. Authenticate and connect have related purposes, and marketplace is a broad meta-tool that overlaps with the server's overall capability.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: most are simple English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug) or nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), but the core domain tool is a long Portuguese-style 'credito_pj_limite_consultar' with a reversed order. Mixing languages and conventions makes naming unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server's stated purpose is 'Limite de Crédito PJ' and only one tool (credito_pj_limite_consultar) directly addresses that domain. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the scope feel mismatched and bloated for a domain-specific server.
For a credit limit analysis server, there is only a single operation available. No history, management, or supporting credit-domain tools exist. While the marketplace tool could theoretically fill gaps, it is not domain-specific, so the surface is severely incomplete for the stated purpose.