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. The description adds valuable context about response structure and conditional fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs), which goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core purpose; the second adds conditional behavior. Every word adds value with no fluff.
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 parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials) and reveals the main fields. It could mention edge cases like partial connectivity, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain params and appropriately focuses on output behavior, which is all that is needed here.
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 clear verb+resource structure ('Returns connection status and URLs') and explains both success and failure modes with specific fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like authenticate or show_version by focusing on status/URL output.
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 describing outcomes in different states (all connected vs missing credentials), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or provide exclusions. Usage context is implicit, not explicit.
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 single JUCESP query tool is clearly distinct from the meta/platform tools. The main ambiguity is only between authenticate and connect, but their descriptions define different responsibilities (credential acquisition vs. connection status reporting).
Naming is noticeably mixed: bare verbs (authenticate, connect), snake_case verb+noun forms (report_bug, show_version), noun-only names (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese language domain-specific tool (jucesp_documentos_consultar). No unified convention is maintained.
Seven tools is a manageable count, but most of them are generic platform support tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version) rather than JUCESP domain tools. The server feels functionally thin for a domain-capable MCP, even though it does not have a bloat problem.
The server exposes only a single domain operation for querying archived JUCESP documents, with no filtering, detail view, pagination, download, or lifecycle tools. Beyond that one query, the remaining tools cover infrastructure rather than the stated JUCESP use-case, so the domain surface is quite incomplete.