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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral details on return states, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits or authentication needs. No contradiction with 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-load the purpose and provide conditional details. No wasted words, every sentence adds value.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the two return states. Complete given the tool's simplicity.
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, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 it returns connection status and URLs, and explains two distinct cases (all connected vs missing credentials). It distinguishes from sibling 'authenticate' by implication, as this tool checks status rather than performing 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 usage for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.
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 distinct purpose with clear descriptions. The DataJud-specific tools (datajud_*) are well-separated from platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), and even similar tools like datajud_get_processo and datajud_movimentos are differentiated by their scope.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools are plain verbs (authenticate, connect), others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the datajud_ prefix is applied to a mix of noun and verb phrases (datajud_movimentos vs datajud_get_processo). This lacks a predictable pattern.
With 10 tools, the count is within the typical range for a server. However, the inclusion of generic platform tools alongside domain-specific DataJud tools slightly dilutes the focus, though each tool serves a distinct role.
The DataJud domain coverage is adequate for common operations (login, search, fetch details, movements, raw query). The platform tools also cover essential actions like marketplace management and bug reporting. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for listing available courts), but overall it's functional.