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?
The annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the description's 'returns status' aligns. It adds value by explaining the output variations: it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect URLs otherwise. This clarifies behavioral outcomes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention side effects (none expected given read-only).
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') followed by specific outcome details. It uses only two sentences, with no wasted words, and clearly communicates the dual outcomes.
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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the response semantics sufficiently for an agent to know what to expect. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the read-only nature, but that's covered by annotations, so the description doesn't need to repeat it.
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 0 parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (vacuously). The description provides no parameter info because none exist, so it correctly focuses on the output semantics, which is more useful. Since there are no parameters, the description's job is to explain what the status means, which it does effectively.
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 reports connection status and URLs, and it distinguishes its behavior by describing the two possible outcomes (authenticated with empty pending, or missing credentials with connect URLs). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, 'connect' logically pairs with 'authenticate' as a read-only status check, which is implied.
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 the tool is used to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing, but it doesn't give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like 'authenticate' for initiating connections or 'toolkit_info' for general info, so the guidance is inferred but not stated.
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 clearly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, vehicle query, marketplace, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. Minor overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info, both of which expose connection status, but they emphasize different aspects.
Naming is mixed: several tools use imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), while others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a Portuguese compound (detran_go_veiculo_consultar). This inconsistency makes the set feel less cohesive.
Seven tools is a reasonable count in general, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the DETRAN vehicle domain. The server's narrow purpose is diluted by infrastructure tools, making the count inappropriate for its stated scope.
The only domain-specific tool is a single query operation; there are no other vehicle-related actions (e.g., lookup by plate, vehicle history, or listing). The remaining tools address platform administration, leaving obvious functional gaps for any real DETRAN vehicle use case.