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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable state-dependent context: it explains the meaning of 'authenticated:true', empty 'pending[]', and the presence of 'connect_url' and per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotation flags.
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, then detailing the two states. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 main scenarios but leaves the partial-connection case ambiguous (what happens if some providers are connected and others not?). It also doesn't detail the exact response structure beyond 'authenticated', 'pending', and URLs. Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it is mostly complete but with minor gaps.
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 and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4 for 0-parameter tools. The description does not need to cover parameters and adds no irrelevant 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', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes behavior under two conditions (all connected vs missing credentials), which differentiates it from the sibling 'authenticate' likely used for initiating 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 implies when to use (checking connection status) but does not explicitly state 'use this when...' or mention alternatives like 'authenticate'. It provides context about expected outputs under different conditions, which helps infer usage, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives.
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 clear, distinct purposes, but `connect` and `toolkit_info` overlap in reporting connection status. The CVM query tool is clearly unique. Overall, an agent would rarely confuse them.
Names mix languages (Portuguese query with underscores vs. English imperative verbs), and no consistent verb_noun pattern exists. Some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), others nouns (toolkit_info), making the set feel ad hoc.
7 tools is numerically reasonable, but only one relates to the server's declared domain (CVM processos sancionadores). The other six are generic platform utilities that belong in a separate server, making the count feel bloated and misaligned.
The single CVM tool only queries sanctioning processes, with no additional operations for the domain. The platform tools are complete for their purpose, but they don't contribute to the CVM domain, leaving the surface severely incomplete for the server name.