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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable conditional return behavior: when connected, authenticated:true and empty pending[]; when credentials missing, connect_url and per-install URLs. This is beyond what annotations provide.
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-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful detail about conditional outcomes. 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?
Despite having no output schema, the description specifies key return fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and the conditions under which they appear. For a zero-parameter status tool with strong annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'). It also differentiates from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by clarifying it is a status check, not an authentication action.
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 clearly implies this should be used to check connection status, and it specifies behavior under different credential conditions. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or provide exclusions (e.g., 'use authenticate to initiate the flow').
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-specific tool, ibama_autuacoes_consultar, is clearly distinct, but the platform utilities overlap (e.g., connect and toolkit_info both report connection state) and marketplace introduces a meta-layer that confuses the set's purpose. The descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could easily misselect among the generic tools.
Names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese phrase (ibama_autuacoes_consultar). All use lowercase underscores, but the lack of a consistent pattern and mixed languages make it unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but six are generic platform utilities that don't belong in a server named for IBAMA autuações, making the count feel inflated for the stated domain. The single domain tool is appropriate, yet the presence of marketplace and account tools dilutes the set's focus.
For a public-data query MCP, the single consultar tool covers the essential operation, but there are no complementary features like history, batch lookup, or export. The marketplace tool can fill some gaps by invoking other MCPs, but that's not part of this server's native domain surface.