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 signal read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable conditional behavior by describing the response states: authenticated:true with empty pending[], and connect_url when credentials are missing. This goes 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds essential detail about the different response states. No waste.
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 no-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains the return values in both connection states. Minor ambiguity about the structure of 'per-install URLs' and 'pending' details, but not significant.
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 covers everything vacuously. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter information.
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 'Returns connection status and URLs,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than performing 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 provides clear context for when to use: when checking provider connection status, with explicit conditions for connected vs. missing credentials. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use, leaving a slight gap.
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 distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, the QSA consultation, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is no ambiguity between them.
Names mix languages (English vs. Portuguese) and conventions: verbs (connect, authenticate), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version, receita_pj_qsa_consultar). No consistent pattern is followed.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the majority are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated domain of 'Receita PJ QSA + Participação'. The set feels bloated with infrastructure controls rather than focused on its purpose.
The domain is served by only a single tool (receita_pj_qsa_consultar). There are no other operations like listing, pagination, or historical data, leaving the surface severely incomplete for a dedicated company data server.