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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the two distinct states (all connected vs missing credentials) and the corresponding return structure (authenticated:true vs connect_url). This goes beyond annotations by detailing the conditional behavior 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?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences, with essential information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: it states the primary output and explains conditional behavior. There is no redundant phrasing.
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 the zero-parameter schema aquatic and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and under which conditions. The tool is simple, and the description fully explains the behavior, especially compared to sibling tools.
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 the schema provides no parameter details. The description does not need to explain parameters. It correctly omits any input details, earning the baseline of 4 per the rubric.
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: it returns connection status and URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status, not authentication actions. The specifics about conditionally returning URLs based on connection state add clarity.
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 explains the behavioral context (when providers are connected vs missing credentials) but does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over siblings such as authenticate. Usage is implied for checking connection status, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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 tools have significant overlap: 'authenticate' and 'connect' both handle login/connection status, while 'marketplace' and 'toolkit_info' both describe platform capabilities. The verbose descriptions further blur distinctions, making it hard for an agent to choose the right tool.
Naming is highly inconsistent: mixed languages (Portuguese 'jucesp_ficha_consultar' vs English 'authenticate', 'marketplace'), mixed verb/noun forms, and no clear pattern. The tool names range from imperative verbs to descriptive nouns without a unifying convention.
The count of 7 tools is within a reasonable range, but the set includes many generic platform tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version) that are unrelated to the core JUCESP domain, making the count feel inflated relative to the actual purpose.
For a JUCESP company registry consultation, there is only one domain-specific tool (jucesp_ficha_consultar). The rest are generic platform utilities, so the tool surface is missing common operations like search, list, or update for the registry data, leaving significant gaps for the stated purpose.