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 readOnlyHint:true and idempotentHint:true, which the description complements by detailing the two output cases (authenticated:true vs connect_url presence). It adds value beyond annotations by explaining the conditional responses, so it's not a mere repetition.
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 consists of two sentences: the first immediately states what it does, and the second explains the two conditions. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no filler or redundancy.
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?
Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior for a simple status check. It explains both possible results (authenticated:true vs connect_url) and gives enough context for an agent to invoke it appropriately.
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?
With 0 parameters, the schema coverage is 100% and the description adds nothing about parameters because there are none. Per rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description doesn't need to elaborate.
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 'Returns connection status and URLs' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status reporting rather than authentication actions, and it explains the two possible scenarios.
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?
It provides clear context on when this tool is appropriate—checking whether all providers are connected or retrieving connection URLs. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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, marketplace, mpt_pr_cnf_consultar, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info each have clear purposes. The only minor overlap is between authenticate and connect, but their descriptions differentiate login flow from status checking. The marketplace tool is broad but well-delineated as a single capability.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use single verbs (authenticate, connect), some use nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses a non-standard underscore mix (mpt_pr_cnf_consultar). There is no clear verb_noun pattern or stylistic uniformity, making it harder to predict tool names.
While 7 tools is within a reasonable range, only one (mpt_pr_cnf_consultar) actually pertains to the server's stated domain of Brazilian certificates. The other six are generic platform utilities that would be better placed in a separate platform server, leaving the server grossly mismatched to its purpose.
The server fails to cover the domain adequately: it offers only a single query tool (mpt_pr_cnf_consultar) with no additional lifecycle operations (e.g., certificate history, validation, or status checks). The generic platform tools do not fill this gap, leaving the actual certificate workflow threadbare and likely to cause agent dead-ends.