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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about output states (authenticated:true with empty pending[], and connect_url when missing credentials). However, it omits partial connection states where some providers are connected and others are not, leaving ambiguity in edge cases.
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, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing conditional details. It is front-loaded, succinct, and every statement adds value.
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 tool is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description explains only two scenarios (all connected vs. credentials missing). It fails to cover partial connection states, which could be important for the agent to fully understand the response format. Given the absence of an output schema, this is a notable gap.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning; it focuses on output behavior, which is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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', with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' which handles authentication itself. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 behavior-based context (what happens when connected vs. credentials missing) which implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or list any exclusions. No direct comparison to sibling tools is made.
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 serve distinct platform functions (auth, status, version, bug reporting) and the sole domain tool is clearly separated. However, connect and toolkit_info both expose connection status, and marketplace is a broad catch-all, creating minor overlap.
Naming is inconsistent: verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese object-verb order (receita_pj_consultar) are mixed without a clear pattern. While style is all lowercase with underscores, the convention is not predictable.
At 7 tools the count is within a reasonable range, but six of the seven are platform meta-tools unrelated to the Receita Federal domain suggested by the server name. This dilutes the tool set's purpose and makes it feel cluttered.
The core CNPJ consultation is covered with optional shareholder data, which is appropriate for a public-data lookup. There are no obvious lifecycle gaps since the operation is read-only, though search or batch capabilities are missing directly but could be discovered via the marketplace tool.