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 and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the two return states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url with per-install URLs), which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.
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 main purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value by explaining the two possible outcomes.
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 parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the two main scenarios (all connected vs credentials missing). It does not mention a partial-connection state, which could be a minor gap, but overall it is complete enough for its complexity.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly avoids adding parameter details since none exist, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.
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, and differentiates from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status rather than initiating authentication. It also describes the two distinct output states, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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 the tool is used to check connection status and retrieve URLs when credentials are missing, providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the behavior described is sufficient guidance for standard use cases.
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 tools have clearly distinct purposes: authenticate, connect, ibama_debitos_consultar, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info are all separate functions. The only minor overlap is that marketplace can also run tools like ibama_debitos_consultar, but its description makes clear it's a catalog/discovery mechanism.
Tool names are inconsistent: some are simple verbs (authenticate, connect), some are noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a long Portuguese snake_case name (ibama_debitos_consultar). This mixing of languages and patterns creates a lack of predictability.
The count of 7 is reasonable, but the majority (six of seven) are generic platform maintenance tools rather than domain-specific ones. For a server allegedly focused on IBAMA debts, the tool set feels bloated with unrelated utilities, though the count itself is not excessive.
For the sole domain function of issuing environmental debt certificates, ibama_debitos_consultar covers the core query but makes no provision for other related operations like validating a certificate, listing historical consultations, or managing credits directly. The platform tools fill some gaps (authentication, payment links) but the domain surface is incomplete.