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 mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description goes further by disclosing conditional output: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url when credentials missing. This behavior is not inferable from annotations alone.
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 core purpose, no redundancy. The second sentence efficiently packs two conditional cases.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the two most likely statuses. It could elaborate on partial connection states but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 the schema offers nothing to document. The description correctly focuses on output behavior, exceeding the baseline for zero-param tools.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'authenticate' which likely initiates authentication, while 'connect' checks 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 description implies usage but never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives. It describes output scenarios but doesn't say 'use this to verify connectivity' or mention that 'authenticate' is for initiating the connection.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but 'authenticate' and 'connect' overlap in purpose (both dealing with auth/connection). The rest are clearly separated by function.
Naming is inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace) mixed with underscore-separated compound names (pref_ba_camacari_cnd_consultar, toolkit_info). No clear pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a utility server that includes meta tools and one domain-specific query. Not excessive or minimal.
The server focuses on a single municipal certificate query, but lacks additional domain operations (e.g., listing certificates or status checks). The utility tools are general but not domain-specific, so coverage feels thin for the stated purpose.