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 establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the authenticated:true/pending[] response shape and the connect_url outputs when credentials are missing.
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 sentences deliver both core purpose and conditional behavior with no filler. The main result is front-loaded and each clause adds necessary information.
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?
The description covers the all-connected and missing-credentials cases clearly, and the annotations already cover safety. It does not explicitly describe a partial-connection state or explain what pending[] entries mean, which leaves a small gap for a tool with no output schema.
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 and the input schema is an empty object, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The provided conditional return information replaces what would normally be parameter guidance.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns connection status and URLs. It further clarifies the two main output conditions, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even though the bare name 'connect' could be ambiguous.
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 gives clear conditional behavior for fully connected and missing-credential states, so an agent can anticipate the result. However, it never mentions when to prefer connect over the sibling authenticate tool, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.
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 six dfe_* tools are clearly distinguished by key/NSU/sync/quota/account/DANFE, but the platform layer has overlap: connect and toolkit_info both report connection/status, and marketplace contains a report_bug action that duplicates the standalone report_bug tool. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent can still misselect between these near-duplicate entry points.
The dfe_ prefix gives the fiscal tools a recognizable family, but the set mixes Portuguese and English (dfe_consultar_chave vs dfe_list_accounts) and mixes prefixed domain verbs with bare English platform verbs (authenticate, connect, show_version). It is readable and mostly snake_case, but not one consistent convention.
Twelve tools is a reasonable, manageable count. The slight over-inclusion comes from six generic platform/meta tools (marketplace, authenticate, toolkit_info, report_bug, etc.) that sit alongside the DF-e domain tools, making the surface broader than the server name implies.
The receipt-side DF-e workflow is mostly covered: sync, lookup by chave/NSU, quota check, account listing, and DANFE generation all exist. However, there is no manifestation/event tool (ciência, confirmação, desconhecimento), so resumo documents cannot be upgraded to complete XML/DANFE within this server, and the sync description references an auditor_fiscal_auditar_nota tool that is not present.