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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds conditional output details (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url) that help the agent anticipate response states without contradicting annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no filler. Every sentence provides meaningful behavioral detail.
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 no-parameter, read-only status tool with strong annotations, the description covers key conditional outcomes (all providers connected vs missing credentials) and specifies return fields. No output schema exists, so the description carries the load adequately.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline of 4 applies; description correctly omits parameter details.
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 uses specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'connection status and URLs'. It distinguishes from siblings by framing itself as a status check, not an action like 'authenticate'.
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?
Description implies this is for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools like 'authenticate' or mention exclusions. The conditional behavior gives context but no explicit when-to-use guidance.
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 roles: authentication, status, marketplace operations, version, toolkit info, bug reporting, and the single OAB lookup. However, 'marketplace' bundles many sub-actions (search, describe, invoke, install, prompts) which could be confusing, and 'connect' overlaps with 'authenticate' in terms of connection status.
Naming is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are noun-style (marketplace, toolkit_info), one is Portuguese with underscores (oab_advogados_consultar), and others use underscores but with different conventions (report_bug, show_version). There is no clear verb_noun pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a platform server, though most of them are generic meta-tools. The count is not excessive, but the mix of domain and platform tools feels slightly awkward. Still, it is within a typical well-scoped range.
Given the server name 'OAB Cadastro de Advogados', the only domain-specific tool is a single lookup by name and registration number. There are no other OAB-related operations (e.g., listing, verifying, or detailed info). The rest are generic platform tools, making the domain coverage severely incomplete.