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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful detail about return value shapes in different states (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url and per-install URLs), which is beyond 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?
Two sentences deliver complete information without redundancy. The first sentence gives the core purpose, and the second explains conditional behavior, all in a compact format.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description adequately covers the main return scenarios and edge cases. For a status-check tool with no parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 correctly focuses on outputs rather than inputs, and no parameter documentation is 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?
The description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific behaviors for connected vs missing credentials. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by focusing on status retrieval rather than establishing 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 explains the two main scenarios (all providers connected vs credentials missing) and what the return values indicate, giving context on when this tool's output is useful. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, CPF query, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between any of the tools.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are single verbs (connect, authenticate), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), one is a noun phrase (toolkit_info), and one mixes Portuguese and English in an unusual order (receita_pf_consultar). The lack of a clear pattern hurts predictability.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for this server, which appears to be a general MCP platform toolkit with a single domain-specific CPF query tool. The count is neither too thin nor bloated, though the mix of platform admin tools with one domain tool is slightly unusual.
For a server named 'Receita Federal PF', the only actual domain operation is a single CPF status consultation. There are no other tax-related operations (e.g., CNPJ queries, tax debt checks, or receipt management), leaving significant gaps for anyone expecting a comprehensive Receita Federal integration. The platform admin tools are complete, but they don't fulfill the apparent domain purpose.