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 readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable state-dependent behavior, explaining the different responses for connected and missing credentials, which goes 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds useful detail about state-dependent behavior, with no unnecessary filler.
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 simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key states and outputs. However, it omits behavior for partial connectivity (some providers connected, some missing), leaving a minor gap in completeness.
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 does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none, and the schema coverage for parameters is trivially 100%.
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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also details two distinct output states, distinguishing it from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by focusing on status rather than action.
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 state when to use this over alternatives. It mentions the behavior when providers are connected or credentials are missing, which gives some context, but lacks explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' 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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but authenticate and connect both deal with authentication/connection, and connect and toolkit_info both report status. The remaining tools (dap_pronaf_pj_consultar, marketplace, report_bug, show_version) have clear, non-overlapping purposes.
Naming is inconsistent: verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) mix with nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a Portuguese phrase 'dap_pronaf_pj_consultar' that doesn't follow any clear pattern. No consistent convention is applied across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a server that combines a domain-specific consultation function with platform utilities. It sits within the typical well-scoped range, though the scope is heavily weighted toward platform management rather than domain operations.
The domain purpose (DAP consultation by CNPJ) is fully covered by the single domain tool, and the marketplace tool provides access to a vast range of additional MCPs, making the overall surface quite complete. Platform management and feedback channels are also present, so no major gaps are evident.