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. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the two possible return states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url and per-install URLs), exceeding what annotations alone provide, though it does not cover error cases or rate limits.
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 every part contributes meaning. No wasted words or repetition.
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 fully explains the two possible outcomes and what fields/URLs to expect, making it complete for a simple zero-parameter 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description correctly avoids adding unnecessary 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Returns connection status and URLs') and then clarifies two distinct outcomes, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'.
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 about the conditions under which different results are returned, implying it is for checking connection status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention 'authenticate' or any exclusion scenarios.
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 distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace search, bug reporting, SEFAZ consultation, version display, and toolkit state. There is no overlapping functionality; even the two info tools (show_version and toolkit_info) have clear differences.
Tool names are inconsistent in style: some are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses a compound with underscore (sefaz_consultar). The pattern is not uniform, making it harder to predict tool names from their function.
With 7 tools, the server provides a reasonable set for its purposes, including both domain-specific (sefaz_consultar) and generic management tools. This count falls within the typical range and is not excessive.
The tool set covers authentication, connection management, marketplace, bug reporting, version info, and the core SEFAZ consultation. However, it lacks additional SEFAZ-related operations such as listing or updating documents, which might be expected from a SEFAZ server, but the core consultation is covered.