Prefeitura RS Porto Alegre: Clearance Certificate (Debts), official-source lookup. Platform-hosted,
Average 4.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
Several tools overlap: connect and toolkit_info both report connection/account status, while marketplace covers installed-tool state and invocation. The one domain tool is distinct, but the platform/meta tools have unclear boundaries among them.
Names mix very different styles: bare verbs (authenticate, connect), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long snake_case prefixed domain name (pref_rs_porto_alegre_cnd_consultar) alongside verb_noun compounds (report_bug, show_version). There is no consistent naming pattern.
The server is named after a single municipal CND consultation, yet six of seven tools are platform/meta utility tools. The count is modest, but the scope is poorly matched: a focused CND server should not carry the full marketplace and toolkit management surface.
The main CND query can be performed with the one domain-specific tool, so the core flow is not broken. However, there is no validation or follow-up domain workflow, and the surrounding platform tools do not meaningfully complete the municipal certificate domain.
authenticateAMCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false and idempotent=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds valuable context: the token is a JWT, session-only login is ephemeral, and the config method is non-expiring. However, it doesn't state whether calling with a token resets an existing session or what happens on repeated calls, though idempotency suggests safety. The description goes beyond annotations but could be more explicit about side effects.
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 a single but lengthy paragraph with two sentences. It is front-loaded with context ('MCP.AI for IDE agents') and efficiently packs both usage modes and parameter behavior. Each clause is informative, but some redundancy exists ('log in in the browser, copy the access token' could be trimmed). Still, it is well-structured and every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the login flow, the two methods (permanent config and session token), the parameter behavior, and the no-args fallback. It also recommends the best practice (config header). This is complete for an agent to know when and how to invoke the tool, and it leverages annotations appropriately without needing extra return-value details.
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 input schema provides only 'token' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining that token is a JWT for session login, that omitting it fetches a link, and that the config method uses a header instead. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema and enables the agent to use the parameter correctly.
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's purpose: to authenticate an IDE agent with the MCP server. It uses a specific verb ('authenticate') and resource (the connection), and the workflow (browser login + token) distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'show_version'. It also differentiates the two login modes (permanent vs session), making its role 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 explicit step-by-step guidance: how to log in via browser, the recommended permanent method via config header, the session-only method via token, and the no-args call to get a link. It also implies alternatives (permanent vs session) and tells when to use each. This is far more than implied usage; it gives concrete instructions for correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
connectAReturns 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 parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about conditional return values: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the two key conditional behaviors. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description usefully explains the return values in both the success and missing-credential scenarios. It is slightly vague about what pending[] represents and what 'per-install URLs' pertain to, but it is adequate for a context/status tool with zero parameters.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so schema-based parameter logic is irrelevant. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details; it appropriately focuses on outputs.
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, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status/URL retrieval rather than initiating authentication.
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?
Usage context is implied through the conditional cases described: when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. However, there are no explicit statements about when to use this over authenticate or other sibling tools, nor any exclusions, leaving some selection responsibility to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marketplaceAInspectThe official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them. Covers capability requests like "find an MCP that does X", "consulta um CPF", "is there a tool for Y". Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile (every tool with its id + params, pricing, auth) so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool. KEY: invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente (one-off), without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list. If the MCP needs a credential/login, invoke returns a connect link; if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link (the user opens it, then you retry). Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit (its tools then show up natively in future sessions); prefer invoke for a single/occasional use. list_tools lists what is callable right now. subscribe/cancel handle per-MCP billing; report_bug sends feedback; request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits. Search/describe flag installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. Writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin. It also carries the mcp.ai PROMPT LIBRARY, which is about ready-made prompt TEXT rather than MCPs: search_prompts finds one, get_prompt returns its full text with {{variables}} filled, and publish_prompt saves a prompt and returns a shareable mcp.ai/p/ link that opens without login.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| action | No | search | |
| mcp_id | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| tool_id | No | ||
| arguments | No | {} | |
| immediate | No | ||
| tier_slug | No | ||
| prompt_body | No | ||
| prompt_slug | No | ||
| prompt_tool | No | ||
| prompt_vars | No | {} | |
| conversation | No | [] | |
| prompt_title | No | ||
| request_name | No | ||
| cancel_reason | No | ||
| cancel_comment | No | ||
| prompt_targets | No | ||
| report_context | No | ||
| prompt_category | No | ||
| request_details | No | ||
| prompt_description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that writes require workspace owner/admin, that invoke runs one-off without bloating the toolkit, and that missing credentials or payment trigger connect/checkout links. No contradiction with 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 a single dense paragraph, but well-structured with the core flow upfront and then feature details. It could benefit from bullet points or sections for readability, but for a tool with 14 actions and prompt library features, the length is justified and every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the complexity (multiple actions, 23 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the full lifecycle: search/describe, invoke vs install, auth requirements, payment flows, and the prompt library. It also mentions that search/describe flags installation status. No critical gaps found.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the key parameters action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments in the flow, and covers prompt-related parameters (prompt_slug, prompt_vars, etc.) for the library. However, with 23 parameters, not all are explicitly described (e.g., limit, immediate, tier_slug), but the core semantics are clear.
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's purpose as the mcp.ai marketplace for discovering, describing, and invoking MCP tools, as well as managing prompt library features. It explicitly lists the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate and connect by focusing on catalog and execution.
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 explicit guidance on when to use invoke vs install (prefer invoke for one-off, install for permanent), explains that search/describe flag installation status, and covers auth requirements for writes. It also mentions alternatives like list_tools for currently callable tools and request_mcp for new capabilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pref_rs_porto_alegre_cnd_consultarCPrefeitura RS Porto Alegre: Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial. Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros (a mesma disponível ao cidadão), não é dado sigiloso. O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | No | ||
| cnpj | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by mentioning that it requires prepaid credit, has no platform credentials, and notes data privacy (LGPD). However, it does not detail failure behaviors (e.g., what happens with insufficient credit) or further the nuances of the read-only operation. Since annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, the additional payment context earns a baseline score of 3.
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 a single file static with multiple sentences, some (like the LGPD legal note) are only marginally relevant. It is not front-loaded with critical usage information, but it is not overly verbose. It could be tightened to include only essential behavioral and parameter hints.
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 tool is simple (2 optional parameters, no output schema). The description provides some context about payment and usage but omits crucial details such as required parameter usage, what the tool returns, and exact scope (e.g., only for Porto Alegre). Given the lack of output schema, the description could have elaborated on the return format or success/failure indicators.
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 input schema has two undocumented string parameters (cpf, cnpj) with 0% attention coverage. The description does not explain how these parameters are used—whether they are required individually or together, or what format they should be in. This is a severe gap; the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly identifies the tool as a query for a Negatividade certificate from Porto Alegre official source. It uses a specific verb 'consulta' and resource, distinguishing it from general sibling tools like authenticate or show_version. However, it does not explicitly state that it queries by CPF or CNPJ, which is a minor gap.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions payment and hosting details but no explicit when/when-not criteria or reference to similar tools. The sibling tools are unrelated to queries, so it is not clear if this is the only option for such queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
report_bugAReport a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| conversation | No | [] |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral detail (including conversation array for reproduction) but does not disclose other potential side effects, permissions, or response behavior beyond what annotations imply. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and provide a key usage instruction. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the main purpose and one parameter. However, the required 'message' parameter is unexplained, and there is no mention of the 'context' parameter. The lack of parameter descriptions makes the tool somewhat incomplete for an agent to use without additional assumptions.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It only explains the 'conversation' parameter (mentioning the conversation array and recent messages), but does not clarify the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context' parameter. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.
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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) which serve entirely different functions.
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 for when to use the tool (for bugs, missing features, or feedback) and provides a specific instruction to include conversation data for reproduction. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but no similar alternative tools exist among siblings, so exclusions are unnecessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
show_versionAShow the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, but since annotations handle it, a neutral score is appropriate.
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 a single, complete sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it maximally concise.
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 zero-parameter, read-only version query with no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and behavior. No additional information is needed.
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, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist, and the schema already indicates no properties.
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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect, authenticate, and marketplace, which serve different purposes.
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 the tool is for checking versions, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given the tool's simplicity and uniqueness among siblings, this is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
toolkit_infoAReturns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by enumerating the exact type of state information returned, enriching the behavioral context 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?
Single, well-structured sentence conveying all necessary information without fluff.
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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, making it self-sufficient for the agent.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter info needed.
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?
Clearly states it returns the current toolkit state with specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). Distinct from siblings like authenticate or connect.
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 it's for inspecting state, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Prefeitura PR Curitiba: Clearance Certificate (Debts), official-source lookup. Platform-hosted, pay
Prefeitura RS Caxias do Sul: Clearance Certificate (Debts), official-source lookup. Platform-hosted,
Prefeitura RS Santa Cruz do Sul: Clearance Certificate (Debts), official-source lookup. Platform-hos
Prefeitura MG Belo Horizonte: Clearance Certificate (Debts), official-source lookup. Platform-hosted