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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so transparency is largely covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying exact return states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] and connect_url when credentials are missing) that are not present in annotations, fully aligning with the safety profile.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') and then add conditional behavior. Every clause contributes meaning, with no redundancy or 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?
As a simple read-only status tool with no output schema, the description fairly completely explains the return values in the two key states. It could go deeper (e.g., describing the exact shape of pending[]), but for this complexity level, it covers the essential what and when sufficiently.
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 vacuously 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it doesn't, so it meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool. No points lost for lack of parameter detail.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the authenticated/pending states. It also mentions the alternative 'authenticate' implicitly by describing when credentials are missing, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—checking connection status and obtaining URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditional logic ('When all providers are connected', 'When credentials are missing') serves as implicit usage guidance, which is adequate for a status-checking tool.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace, debtor lookup, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is no overlap between these operations, so an agent can easily select the right tool for the task.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools are single verbs (authenticate, connect), others are verb-noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), and the domain tool is in Portuguese (pgfn_devedores_consultar). This inconsistent style and language mixing make the tool names less predictable.
The count of 7 tools is within a normal range, but the composition is unbalanced: only one tool (pgfn_devedores_consultar) relates to the server's stated domain (PGFN debtors), while the other six are generic platform utilities. This dilutes the focus and makes the tool set feel scoped more to the platform than to its declared purpose.
The sole domain tool covers a simple debtor lookup (CPF/CNPJ verification), which is a complete operation for that specific query. However, there is no additional functionality such as detailed debtor information, history, or batch queries, and the numerous platform tools do not contribute to domain coverage, leaving the surface thin for a dedicated debtors service.