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 read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds informative conditional outcomes (authenticated:true vs. connect_url for missing credentials), enriching behavioral understanding beyond 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then explaining conditional behavior. Every word adds value, 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?
The description covers the two main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) but does not mention partial connection states or error scenarios. Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is warranted.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description correctly introduces no parameter details, and with no params to explain, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 specific conditional outcomes. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' by focusing on status retrieval rather than actions.
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 usage by describing what the tool returns, and the sibling tool 'authenticate' naturally indicates when not to use this tool. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided, only implicit context.
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, but marketplace is a catch-all that overlaps with toolkit_info (list_tools vs. installed MCPs) and authenticate/connect both deal with connection state. The mix of PIS-specific and platform-level tools also creates ambiguity about which tool handles a given request.
All names use lowercase with underscores, which is consistent, but the naming style varies: some are imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is Portuguese verb-noun (pis_consultar). This mixed pattern breaks the expected verb_noun consistency.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but for a server named 'PIS (Ministério do Trabalho)', only one tool actually relates to PIS. The other six are generic MCP platform utilities (marketplace, auth, version, etc.) that do not belong under this name, making the count inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
The PIS domain is covered by only a single consultation tool; there are no other PIS operations (e.g., statement retrieval, updates). The platform utilities are comprehensive for managing MCPs, but they are irrelevant to the core domain. This leaves the surface feeling incomplete for a server claiming to provide PIS services.