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, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds context about output states (authenticated:true with empty pending vs connect_url), which enriches behavioral understanding beyond 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 cover the tool's purpose and behavioral variants without redundancy. Every clause adds meaningful information about return values and states.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return values and their conditions. It covers the main scenarios (all providers connected vs missing credentials), making the tool's behavior complete for an agent.
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 description correctly avoids any parameter explanation. Baseline for no params is 4, and since the description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation, this score applies.
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?
Description states it returns connection status and URLs, with specific details about the authenticated state and pending list. This clearly differentiates it from sibling 'authenticate' which likely performs the connection, making purpose unambiguous.
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 by describing its return behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
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 fairly clear role, but the boundaries blur around `authenticate`, `connect`, and `marketplace`: all three deal with credentials, connection status, and running platform tools. The single DETRAN query tool is unique, but an agent could hesitate between using it directly and using `marketplace` to invoke a similar paid/one-off tool.
Naming conventions are mixed: the domain tool is a long Portuguese snake_case verb (`detran_ms_multas_flex_consultar`), while several Spanish/English short verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`, `marketplace`) and compound nouns (`toolkit_info`, `show_version`) are used. There is no consistent verb_noun or naming pattern across the set.
Seven tools is not an unreasonable number, but six are generic platform and housekeeping operations rather than DETRAN-focused functionality. For a server advertised as a DETRAN MS fine tool, the set is heavily weighted away from the domain and feels imbalanced.
The only actual DETRAN capability is a single `consultar` operation, which may handle basic fine consultation but leaves no room for related domain needs such as vehicle/plate context, fine details, or payment/preparation flows. The `marketplace` tool is an escape hatch to external tools, not a coherent native DETRAN domain surface.