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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful conditional response details: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. It does not describe partial-connection behavior, but the added context is meaningful.
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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately provide conditional behavior. No filler, redundancies, or unnecessary caveats.
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?
This is a simple, no-parameter, read-only tool with informative annotations and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers what is returned in the main scenarios, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.
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 description has no obligation to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add.
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?
Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' The conditional behaviors ('all providers connected' vs. 'credentials are missing') clarify what the tool does and distinguish it from the sibling 'authenticate' tool.
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?
Clear context is provided: this is the tool to check connection status and retrieve auth URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is strongly implied by the behavior described.
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 are mostly distinct: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all relate to connection/status but with different focuses. However, marketplace is a meta-tool that overlaps with the server's purpose (it can invoke other MCPs, including possibly similar ones), and report_bug/show_version are generic utilities. The main domain tool, jucesp_ficha_completa_consultar, is clearly distinct, but the presence of marketplace creates ambiguity about whether to use it or the native tool.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (jucesp_ficha_completa_consultar), others are single words (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). There's no consistent verb_noun pattern; the main tool is descriptive but the rest are generic and don't follow a clear convention.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable, but the set is bloated with meta-tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) that are not specific to the JUCESP domain. The actual domain-specific tool is just one, which feels thin for a server named 'JUCESP: Ficha Cadastral Completa'. The count is borderline: not too many, but the scope is diluted.
The server's stated purpose is to provide a complete company registration record (ficha cadastral completa), but it only offers a single query tool (jucesp_ficha_completa_consultar). There are no tools for related operations like listing companies, validating data, or handling multiple query types (e.g., by CNPJ, NIRE, or name are all in one tool, but no pagination or batch). The rest of the tools are platform utilities, not domain coverage, so the domain surface is severely incomplete.