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 readiness and idempotency, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful conditional behavior: the response shape differs depending on whether all providers are connected or credentials are missing, including the presence of connect_url and per-install URLs. This goes beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.
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 wastes no words. Each clause adds meaningful information about the response under different conditions, making it concise and well-structured.
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, zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description covers the two main response scenarios. It leaves minor ambiguity around partial connectivity states and the exact structure of 'per-install URLs', but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety and idempotency.
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 description coverage is trivially 100%, so there is nothing the description must clarify about parameters. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4, and the description's focus on return behavior is appropriate 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 the tool returns connection status and URLs, which is a specific verb and resource. It implicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools like authenticate by describing status checking rather than performing authentication, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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 direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as authenticate or show_version. It explains conditional outputs, which gives context about behavior, but an agent must infer that this is for checking connection status rather than acting on it. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
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.
The 16 calculo_* tools are each tied to a specific legal area and are generally easy to distinguish. However, the platform tools overlap: marketplace bundles discovery, auth, listing, and bug-report flows that also exist in authenticate, connect, toolkit_info, and report_bug.
The calculo_* group is highly consistent and readable. The six platform tools follow a different, more mixed English convention with bare verbs, noun phrases, and snake_case names, so the set as a whole has two naming schemas rather than one.
22 tools is in the heavy 16-25 range and feels excessive for a server titled 'Reajuste de Aluguel'. Some legal calculators are useful in a broader legal-calculation platform, but the title and the actual scope are mismatched.
For a broad Brazilian legal-calculation toolkit, coverage is quite wide: rent, monetary updating, criminal sentencing, FGTS, INSS, labor, and banking calculations are present. Still, there are notable gaps for a general legal surface, such as other INSS benefit calculations or civil compensation estimates, and the rent-adjustment title does not represent the full set.