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 and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable conditional return details (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url). It explains what happens in different states, going beyond the annotation hints.
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, immediately states the primary purpose, and explains the two key states without any 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?
For a simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return behavior in the main scenarios. It sufficiently explains what to expect without needing more detail.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema is trivially covered and there is nothing to clarify. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter information.
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', specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than performing authentication.
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 context on when to use the tool by describing behavior in two key scenarios (all providers connected vs. credentials missing). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the conditional behavior strongly implies its use as a status check.
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.
Most platform tools have clear distinct roles, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection/account state, and marketplace also handles credentials and connect links, creating overlap. The single ECRVSP domain tool is clearly distinct, but the auth/connection/state cluster is not fully separated.
Tool names mix English imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with noun-style names (marketplace, toolkit_info) and one Portuguese object-verb name (ecrvsp_docs_emplacamento_consultar). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern or language convention across the set.
Seven tools is not inherently excessive, but six of the seven are generic platform utilities rather than ECRVSP domain functionality. Only one tool actually serves the server's stated purpose, so the count is misaligned with the domain.
For a paid consult-only service, the core lookup operation exists and auth/credit concerns are handled by platform tools. There are no obvious missing operations for the narrow domain, though a listing or document-type-checking tool would be a minor enhancement.