Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as network calls or potential delays. This is acceptable given the simple read-only nature.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and efficiently lists the returned components. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary filler.
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 is simple, has no parameters, and the annotations cover safety. The description enumerates all return categories, which suffices for understanding the tool's purpose and output. It does not mention edge cases like error handling or latency, but these are not critical for such a straightforward informational tool.
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 the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description correctly need not explain any parameters, as there are none to document.
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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes it unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or search tools.
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 for informational purposes but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the usage context is inferred rather than stated.
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.
There is substantial overlap among the process-discovery tools: cnpj_processos, cpf_processos, djen_processos_por_parte, processos_buscar_por_nome, processos_buscar_por_documento, and legal_dossie all lead to finding the same kind of case by party/document, differing mainly by backend and sync/async details. The verbose descriptions mitigate the confusion, but an agent still has to reason through several competing entry points with unclear boundaries.
The set uses domain prefixes and snake_case, but mixes English and Portuguese action verbs (djen_search_comunicacoes vs. djen_processos_por_parte; processos_get_resultado vs. processos_buscar_por_nome) and includes bare-noun names like cnpj_processos, legal_dossie, and transparencia_pep. Platform/utility tools (connect, marketplace, show_version) use a different English naming style, so no single pattern is followed.
30 exposed tools exceeds the scale's heavy threshold and the count is inflated by platform/admin/marketplace meta-tools as well as multiple near-redundant discovery backends. A more scoped legal server could merge the process-finding variants and keep the utility/marketplace features separate.
The server covers a lot of ground—company/CPF data, DJEN and portal discovery, jurisprudence full text, monitoring, transparency, PEP, and sanctions—but there is no native current-case-status/movimentaçoes tool, and the descriptions repeatedly tell agents to enrich with datajud_* tools that are not exposed directly in this list. That is a significant workflow gap for a tool advertised as an alternative to Jusbrasil.