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. The description builds on this by adding concrete output behavior: when all providers are connected it returns authenticated:true with empty pending[], and when credentials are missing it returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This provides useful behavioral detail beyond the 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 and information-dense. It opens with the core purpose, then immediately covers the two relevant result states. Every sentence earns its place and there is no extraneous content.
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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only annotations, the description equips an agent to both select and interpret the tool correctly. It explains the main output fields and the conditional URL behavior, which is complete for the tool's stated scope.
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 there is no schema coverage burden to compensate for. The description correctly focuses on return behavior instead of parameters, which is entirely appropriate for a no-input status tool.
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, establishing a specific verb plus resource. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like authenticate by framing it as a status check rather than an authentication action. The conditional output description adds clarity about what the tool reports.
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 provides clear usage context: it explains what happens when providers are connected and what happens when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives like authenticate or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough to infer its primary 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.
The three DJEN-specific tools are fairly distinct, but djen_search_comunicacoes and djen_processos_por_parte both find legal matters by party/name and could be confused despite their different coverage. The generic platform tools like authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info also overlap somewhat around connection state and access.
Naming is inconsistent: djen_* tools use snake_case with a domain prefix, while platform tools use bare imperative verbs like authenticate, connect, report_bug, and show_version, and marketplace is a single noun. There is no unified convention across the set.
Nine tools is a reasonable count, but six of them are generic platform utilities unrelated to DJEN, leaving only three legal-domain tools. The server feels diluted rather than well-scoped, though it is not extreme.
The domain surface covers DJEN publication search, party-name discovery, and PDF retrieval, but the descriptions reference missing capabilities such as CPF/CNPJ lookup, datajud process confirmation, and historical process coverage. Agents cannot complete important legal workflows using only the tools actually provided.