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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining the conditional response shape (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url when credentials are missing). This goes beyond the annotation safety profile.
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 primary purpose, and each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. No irrelevant details.
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?
With no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values under the two main conditions (all connected vs. missing credentials). This covers the essential behavior of a simple status tool with good annotations and no parameters.
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 baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids any parameter-specific details since none exist.
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, with specific output conditions. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by focusing on status/URL retrieval 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 the tool is for checking connection status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'use after authenticate to verify all providers are connected'). No exclusion criteria or contextual cues beyond the tool's purpose.
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 distinct purposes, but marketplace is a multi-purpose hub that overlaps with connect and toolkit_info for managing MCPs and could confuse agents discerning current state vs. discovery/run capabilities. The primary domain tool (detran_pb_licenciamento_consultar) is clear, but the platform-level tools have some boundary overlap.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use snake_case verbs (detran_pb_licenciamento_consultar, show_version, report_bug), some are single-word nouns without verbs (connect, marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses an imperative (authenticate). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
7 tools is a reasonable count for a server that combines a specific domain query tool with platform meta-tools (auth, marketplace, bug reporting, version checks). It is slightly heavy because several tools are housekeeping rather than domain features, but still within an acceptable range.
The domain surface is severely limited: only one tool for the stated purpose (consulting DETRAN PB licensing), with no supporting tools for fetching details, history, or related vehicle operations. The remaining tools focus on platform management rather than the domain, making the server feel incomplete for its primary claim.