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 adds behavioral nuance about response format (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url), but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits or permission requirements. It doesn't contradict 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and clear conditions. No wasted words.
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 tool has no output schema, but the description explains what the response contains (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url). It doesn't explain how to interpret partial connectivity or error scenarios, but given the simplicity and zero params, it's sufficiently complete.
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 description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter info but that's fine given no params 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 identifies the tool's function: checking connection status and providing URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate and toolkit_info by focusing on connection status rather than initiating auth or general toolkit 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 implies usage when checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like 'authenticate' for initiating connections. There is enough context to understand when to call, but no exclusions.
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 only domain tool, dprf_nada_consta_multas_pagas_consultar, is clearly distinct, but connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace overlap around connection status, installed tools, and dispatch. Their lengthy descriptions force careful reading and make tool selection ambiguous.
Six tools use short English imperative verbs such as authenticate, connect, report_bug, and show_version, but the domain tool is a long Portuguese snake_case phrase ending in consultar. The set mixes languages, lengths, and verb placement with no consistent convention.
Seven tools is not a large count, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the named DPRF 'Nada consta' service. The actual domain surface is a single consultation tool, so the count feels padded rather than purpose-scoped.
For a simple official-source query, the single consultation tool covers the core need and no CRUD lifecycle is expected. However, the server lacks any domain-specific supporting operations such as result history, formatting, or related consultation types, while the platform tools do not address that gap.