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 establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining the two possible response patterns: authenticated with empty pending[], or connection URLs when credentials are missing. This is clear and consistent with the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose, and each sentence adds valuable information about normal and edge-case responses. There is no filler or redundant content.
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 status tool, the description covers the main return conditions and introduces the relevant output fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). Although no output schema is present, the text gives enough context without needing to explain complex 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The schema fully covers the parameter surface, and the description's focus is appropriately on behavior and output rather than parameter details, which are unnecessary here.
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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, which is a specific verb plus a clear, bounded resource. It also distinguishes this from sibling authentication and query tools by framing it as a read-only status endpoint rather than an action or data query.
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 appropriate use case: call this to check connection status and discover missing-credential URLs. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of related tools like authenticate or projuris_consulta, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.
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 are clearly separated by entity and action (e.g., projuris_consulta_processo vs projuris_get_processo vs projuris_create_processo). The generic fallbacks (projuris_get, projuris_consulta, projuris_request) are explicitly described as escape hatches for resources without named tools, reducing confusion. A few overlaps exist (e.g., projuris_list_webhook vs a potential consulta_webhook), but descriptions clarify the intended use.
The projuris_* tools follow a consistent pattern: projuris_{verb}_{entity} (e.g., projuris_consulta_processo, projuris_create_pessoa). However, verbs mix languages — English 'create/get/update/list' alongside Portuguese 'consulta' — and one tool uses 'list' while others use 'consulta'. The non-prefixed platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) break the pattern entirely, further hurting consistency.
With 38 tools, this is a heavy surface, but it reflects the breadth of a legal ERP with many entities. Several tools are generic fallbacks that cover the entire API, and the platform-level tools add non-Projuris functionality. The count is borderline: not extremely bloated, but more than necessary for the core CRUD operations.
The named tools cover only a subset of entities (e.g., no create/update for processo or contrato), which would be a gap. However, the generic projuris_request, projuris_get, and projuris_consulta tools provide complete access to all 757 API resources, so no dead ends remain. This hybrid approach makes the surface functionally complete for an agent, though the named tool coverage is uneven.