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 and idempotent behavior. The description supplements this by explaining response states (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials are missing). This adds meaningful context about what the tool returns without contradicting 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?
Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core function; the second explains the conditional output. Every clause earns its place.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the two relevant return scenarios. It covers the essential states without unnecessary detail, making it complete for all practical purposes.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4, and there is no parameter information needed. The description adds no parameter details (nor should it) since there are none.
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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the title 'Connection Status' reinforces the purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate', relying on context rather than naming alternatives.
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 gives behavior-based context ('When all providers are connected... When credentials are missing...') which implies when this tool is useful, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it compared to siblings. No alternative tools are named, so the usage guidance is indirect.
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 actual DETRAN query tool is unique, but several tools overlap in the auth/connection/status space: authenticate, connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace all describe related login, connection, and available-tool responsibilities. An agent could easily call the wrong one when trying to determine connection status or perform a one-off query.
Naming is inconsistent: English verbs, underscore-separated English nouns, noun-style platform names, and a Portuguese object-verb form are all mixed together. There is no consistent verb_noun or domain_suffix pattern across the tool set.
Seven tools is not too many in absolute terms, but only one tool is about the server's apparent DETRAN domain. The rest are generic platform/auth/marketplace utilities, making the set feel lopsided and not purpose-built for vehicle consultations.
For a read-only public-data query, a single consultation tool could be acceptable, but the domain surface is still very thin. There are no related operations for different query types, no explicit failure-handling mechanisms, and no other DETRAN-related capabilities to help an agent learn what is possible.