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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about response states (authenticated:true vs connect_url), going beyond annotations 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 each sentence adds meaningful detail about return states. No wasted words.
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?
Given the low complexity and no output schema, the description explains the main return conditions well. However, it does not cover partial connectivity scenarios (some providers connected, others not), leaving a small gap in completeness.
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 description has no parameter burden. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there are no parameter semantics to clarify.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditional behaviors (authenticated:true vs connect_url). This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and the differentiation from siblings like authenticate is implicit but clear.
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 this is for checking connection status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like authenticate. No when/when-not guidance is provided, only behavior descriptions.
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 have clearly distinct purposes: authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, scr_bacen_consultar, show_version, and toolkit_info are each identifiable. However, the marketplace tool bundles many sub-actions (including report_bug, install, list_tools) that overlap with dedicated tools like report_bug and toolkit_info, creating potential confusion.
Naming conventions are mixed: English imperatives (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), noun-based names (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese verb phrase (scr_bacen_consultar). This lacks a consistent verb_noun or uniform pattern, making the set feel cobbled together.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a server, but several tools (show_version, toolkit_info, connect) are platform-level utilities rather than domain-specific, slightly diluting the focus on SCR consultation. Still, each tool appears to serve a purpose, so the count is acceptable.
The server's stated domain is SCR (Banco Central credit information), yet only one tool (scr_bacen_consultar) addresses that domain, offering a single query operation. There are no additional tools for historical data, batch processing, or output formatting. While the marketplace can compensate by invoking other MCPs, the core domain surface is severely minimal.