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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral details about the return values based on the system state. It explains what happens when credentials are missing, which is not covered by 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?
The description is concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant or vague wording. It is well-structured, presenting the main purpose first, then the conditional behavior.
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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the possible return values (authenticated flag and empty pending array, or connect_url and per-install URLs). It covers the key scenarios without leaving major gaps.
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 no parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not attempt to do so, keeping the description focused on behavior.
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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, using a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate (which performs authentication) and show_version (which shows version info).
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 implicitly guides usage by describing the conditions under which different outputs are returned (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, but the context makes it clear for checking connection status.
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 tool set contains one domain-specific tool (detran_pe_veiculo_consultar) and several platform utilities. Most have distinct purposes, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, which could cause minor confusion. Overall, the tools are well-separated.
Tool names mix English and Portuguese, and use inconsistent structural patterns. For example, 'marketplace' is a noun while 'authenticate' is a verb, and 'detran_pe_veiculo_consultar' follows a Portuguese naming convention. This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but the server's specific name suggests a focus on DETRAN PE vehicle data, yet only one tool directly addresses that. The remaining tools are generic platform utilities, which dilutes the server's apparent purpose.
The only domain-specific tool is a single query operation for DETRAN PE vehicles. No other vehicle-related operations are present, such as lookup by different identifiers, history, or fines. The platform utilities are comprehensive but do not contribute to the data domain, leaving the DETRAN coverage extremely thin.