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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: specific response fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and how they vary based on connection state, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 main purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), followed by a concise conditional breakdown. Every sentence adds value and there is 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 likely main states (all providers connected and credentials missing) and the corresponding return values. Since there is no output schema, it provides the necessary information about what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly describe a partially connected state, which is a minor gap but not critical for this simple tool.
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 0 parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. There are no parameters for the description to explain, so the baseline score of 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for anything.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource: connection status and URLs. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than the authentication action itself, and it explicitly describes return values in different connection states.
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 when to use this tool: to check connection status and get URLs, especially when verifying if all providers are connected or when credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but sibling 'authenticate' is clearly different, and the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool over others.
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 distinctly separate role: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, legal process consultation, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit state. No two tools overlap in purpose.
Most tools use short English verb or noun phrases (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), but the core domain tool is a long Portuguese phrase (processos_judiciais_simplificada_consultar), breaking the pattern and mixing languages.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but six of them are generic platform utilities rather than specific to judicial processes. The server's stated purpose is only represented by a single domain tool, making the count feel slightly bloated with platform-related tools.
The domain tool provides the core consultation by CPF/CNPJ, which matches the 'simplified' intent. However, there are no additional judicial process operations (e.g., detailed process lookup, history, or documents), but the platform marketplace tool can extend capabilities.