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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the two possible outputs (connected vs missing credentials) and the URLs returned. No contradictions.
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-loading the core purpose and then detailing edge cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundant 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?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and sufficient annotations, the description completely covers the tool's behavior. It explains the two return scenarios clearly.
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?
No parameters exist, so the description need not explain them. Schema coverage is 100% (none). Baseline 4 for zero 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's purpose: returning connection status and URLs. It distinguishes between two states (all connected vs missing credentials) with specific details (e.g., authenticated:true, pending[] empty, connect_url). This is specific and distinctive.
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 for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'authenticate' or other tools. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
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 seven fipe_* tools each target a distinct step in the FIPE data lookup (brands, models, years, price, history, search, reference dates), and their names make their purposes clear. However, connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and marketplace bundles many sub-operations into one tool, creating minor ambiguity.
FIPE tools follow a consistent fipe_<noun> pattern, but the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) use generic verbs/nouns without a shared convention, mixing styles within the same server.
13 tools is within the ideal range for a domain-specific data server; the 7 FIPE tools are well-scoped and the 6 platform utilities are justified for authentication, marketplace access, and system status.
The FIPE data surface is complete: marcas → modelos → anos → preco covers the full drill-down, with buscar, historico, and tabelas_referencia adding search, time series, and date selection. No obvious missing operations for the domain.