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, and the description aligns with those by purely reporting state. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: exact return conditions such as authenticated:true, empty pending[], and connect_url for toolkit/install-level URLs.
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 core purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful detail on the two possible connection states. There is no redundancy with the annotations or schema.
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 no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description covers the main outcome fields and two relevant scenarios. It does not explicitly describe a partial-credential state or name every return field, but the given conditions ('all providers connected' and 'credentials missing') provide sufficient operational context.
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 the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter info the description needs to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inventing param 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?
The description uses a specific verb and object ('Returns connection status and URLs') and clarifies the tool's role as a status/read-only endpoint. It also distinguishes behavior by credential state, making it easy to tell apart from sibling tools like 'authenticate', which presumably initiates the auth flow.
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 gives clear context: users should call it to check whether providers are connected and to obtain connect URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly say 'do not use this to authenticate' or name alternative tools, so it lacks a full exclusion/alternative statement.
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 clear, distinct function, and the descriptions prevent overlap between them. However, the inclusion of six platform-level utilities alongside the single domain-specific tool (pref_mg_uberaba_cnd_consultar) creates a risk that an agent may select the wrong tool if it misinterprets the server's purpose.
Naming uses a mix of single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long descriptive snake_case tool (pref_mg_uberaba_cnd_consultar). While all are lowercase and snake_case for multi-word names, the pattern is not uniform in terms of verb/noun structure or granularity.
The server has 7 tools, but only one directly relates to its stated purpose (certidão negativa de débitos). The other six are generic MCP platform utilities (authentication, marketplace, bug reporting, etc.) that seem out of scope, making the set over-weighted with irrelevant tools for the intended domain.
For the domain of issuing negative debt certificates, only a single consult operation exists. There are no supporting tools for managing queries, historical lookups, or other lifecycle steps. The platform tools do not contribute to domain coverage, leaving the surface minimal and potentially insufficient for real-world workflows.