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?
The description discloses behavior beyond annotations by explaining the response structure for different scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials). It adds context about the returned URLs and authenticated flag, which annotations do not provide.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose and then detailing conditional behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers key outcomes (authenticated vs. missing credentials). However, it does not mention intermediate states (e.g., partial connectivity) or clarify what 'pending[]' contains, leaving minor gaps.
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 is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it does not add any unnecessary parameter information.
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 details about response values. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing 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?
The description implies usage for checking connection status, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It is clear enough for a status-checking tool, but lacks explicit guidance.
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 purposes (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), but 'marketplace' is a catch-all with many sub-actions and overlaps with 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' in terms of status/installed state. The legal consultation tool is unique, but the platform tools create some boundary confusion.
Naming mixes English and Portuguese, single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb_noun snake_case (report_bug, show_version, processos_judiciais_completa_consultar with the verb at the end). There is no consistent convention.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the server is named 'Processos Judiciais' while most tools are generic platform management tools, making the scope feel mismatched. The count itself is not excessive, but the tool-to-purpose relationship is weak.
For a legal process domain, only one tool directly addresses the purpose; there are no other legal-specific operations beyond the single consultation. The remaining tools are unrelated to legal processes, so the completeness of the stated domain is severely lacking. If considered as a platform server, coverage is broader but still ad-hoc.