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?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the output states (e.g., 'authenticated:true' vs. 'connect_url' when missing credentials) and mentions 'per-install URLs.' The annotations provide readOnlyHint:true and idempotentHint:true, which the description aligns with, adding information about the two possible success states. This is useful for agents to know what to expect.
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 then providing key output details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 sufficiently explains the main return states. It lacks a mention of error responses, but with such a quiet scope and no output schema, this is acceptable. The completeness is high for the tool's low complexity.
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 parametersached, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline score of 4 for no parameters is appropriate.
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, specifically mentioning 'authenticated:true' and 'empty pending[]' when all providers are connected.Length. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info', missing an opportunity to clarify its role as a status check versus a login action.
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 as a status-check tool, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'authenticate' for establishing connections. For a tool with no parameters and among siblings like 'authenticate', clearer guidance would be beneficial.
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 tools are mostly distinct, but connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, with toolkit_info being a superset. marketplace is a large multi-capability tool but clearly separate from the vehicle query tool.
Naming is inconsistent: English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long Portuguese snake_case name (detran_pi_veiculo_consultar) are all mixed, with no clear convention.
Although 7 tools is a reasonable count, the server's stated purpose is vehicle consultation, but only one tool serves that domain. The other six are generic platform management tools, making the set poorly scoped for its apparent intent.
For the named domain, the surface is severely incomplete—only a single query operation exists, with no supporting operations. The platform-related tools do not fill domain gaps, so the set lacks coherent coverage of any single purpose.