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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds value by specifying the two behavioral states: returns authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, or connect_url when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover partial connection states or potential errors.
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 long, front-loads the main purpose, and every sentence adds specific behavioral detail. 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 parameters and no output schema, so the description carries full responsibility for conveying expected returns. It adequately explains the two outcome states, making it complete for the tool's simple scope. The presence of sibling tools does not add complexity that would require 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?
There are zero parameters, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there is no input schema beyond an empty object.
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 'Returns connection status and URLs' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status/URLs rather than performing authentication. It also details conditional behavior, which makes its purpose 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 when to use the tool by explaining conditional outcomes (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), which helps the agent decide based on the state. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like 'authenticate', but the context makes the tool's role clear.
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 distinct names and purposes, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and marketplace is a vast catch-all for many sub-operations. The mix of one domain-specific tool (ibama_regularidade_consultar) with six generic platform tools also makes the server's purpose confusing for an agent.
Naming conventions are highly inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), snake_case in Portuguese (ibama_regularidade_consultar), compound nouns (toolkit_info), and one bare noun (marketplace). There is no predictable verb_noun pattern, and mixed languages further undermine consistency.
At 7 tools, the count is within the normal range, but the server's name suggests an IBAMA-focused purpose; only one tool actually belongs to that domain. The other six are general platform utilities, making the set feel misaligned with the server's identity, though not extreme.
The core domain function (ibama_regularidade_consultar) is covered as a single-point query, and the authentication/connection flow is supported by platform tools. However, there are no additional IBAMA-related operations (e.g., batch queries, status checks, or document verifications), so the domain surface is minimal. The platform side is broad but not deeply integrated with the domain.