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?
Despite annotations already indicating read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds valuable context about conditional responses—e.g., "returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]" vs. "returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs." This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the structured hints.
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 core purpose and efficiently adds conditional behavior. There is zero redundancy, making every word earn 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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers both success and failure scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). Combined with rich annotations and no output schema, it is fully self-contained for an agent to use.
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, triggering the baseline of 4 as per the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter-specific details since none exist, and the baseline appropriately reflects the minimal burden.
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," which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, show_version, and toolkit_info by focusing on connection state, with no ambiguity.
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 and handling missing credentials, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. While context is clear, there are no exclusions or alternative referrals, warranting a 4.
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 single domain tool is clearly distinct from the platform utilities. authenticate and connect overlap slightly around credentials/connection status, but their descriptions separate login from status checking. No other tools are confusable.
Names mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), English verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), noun-only names (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese snake_case domain verb (detran_go_debitos_consultar). There is no consistent naming convention across the set.
Seven tools is not an excessive number, but six are generic platform/marketplace utilities while only one addresses the server's stated DETRAN GO debts domain. The count is reasonable overall, yet the scope feels mismatched with the server name.
For a debts-consultation server, only one domain operation exists, with no query variety or broader debt-related workflow. The platform tools are fairly complete for managing MCPs, but they do not fill the domain-specific gap implied by the server name.