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 non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing conditional return states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url when credentials missing), which is beyond annotation coverage.
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?
Description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and provides relevant conditional details without any redundant or extraneous text.
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?
With no output schema, the description explains the two primary return scenarios (all providers connected vs missing credentials). However, it does not address partial connection states, which could be a potential gap for a status-checking tool.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so the schema offers no semantic content. According to calibration, 0 params baseline is 4. The description does not 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' with a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than establishing a connection.
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 usage for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. There is no direct comparison or exclusion guidance.
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.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection status, and `marketplace` duplicates `report_bug` and includes list/status capabilities that overlap with both. The monolithic `marketplace` tool makes it hard for an agent to decide whether to call it directly or use the more specific tools.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: simple verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), verb_noun (`report_bug`, `show_version`), a bare noun (`marketplace`), a long snake_case domain name (`scr_bacen_detalhado_consultar`), and a noun phrase (`toolkit_info`). The mixed conventions and variable lengths make the set feel ad hoc.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range and not overwhelming. However, only one tool maps to the server's stated SCR domain; the rest are generic platform utilities. While each earns a place, the count feels slightly disproportionate for a server whose name suggests a focused SCR service.
The core SCR detail consultation is fully covered by the single domain tool, and platform-level tools handle authentication, connection status, bug reporting, versioning, and toolkit state. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated tool to list available reference months), but there are no dead ends for the primary workflows.