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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses specific behavioral outcomes: when all providers are connected, it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]; when credentials are missing, it returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs. This adds valuable context about expected response states.
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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by conditional details. Every sentence adds value without 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?
For a simple, parameterless, read-only tool, the description is complete. It covers the two main scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) and specifies the relevant output values. No output schema exists, so the description adequately substitutes for return value documentation.
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 baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. No additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'), and the conditional behavior differentiates it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' (which presumably performs authentication rather than checking status).
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 context is clear: this is a read-only tool to check connection status and retrieve URLs. It implies usage when you need to know whether providers are connected or need connection URLs. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but marketplace bundles many sub-actions (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, etc.) into one tool, and connect/toolkit_info both report connection/status information, creating some boundary ambiguity.
Naming is mixed: simple verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun patterns (show_version, report_bug, toolkit_info), a single noun (marketplace), and a domain-specific compound (nfe_inutilizacao_consultar) do not follow a consistent convention, though names remain readable.
With 7 tools, the count is within a normal range, but only one tool (nfe_inutilizacao_consultar) relates to the server's stated purpose of NFe inutilizações. The other six are generic platform utilities that inflate the count for a domain-specific server.
The domain surface is severely limited: a single consult operation (nfe_inutilizacao_consultar) with no additional NFe-related operations such as listing, filtering, or exporting. The platform tools do not address the domain, leaving agents with only one tool for all NFe tasks.