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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by describing response specifics: returns authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the safety hints and helps the agent anticipate output variations without an output schema.
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 ('Returns connection status and URLs'), then provides conditional specifics. Every word is necessary, no fluff or redundancy.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the two primary response states and the URLs returned. It gives the agent enough to understand what to expect and how to interpret the result. Given the simplicity, this is complete.
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 the description correctly omits parameter details. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for tools with no parameters. Since there are no parameters to clarify, the description adds no parameter semantics but does not need to.
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 the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific verbs ('returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate (which handles authentication) and show_version (version info) by focusing solely on connection status and URL retrieval.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or complementary tools. While the purpose is clear, an agent might infer it is for checking connectivity before authentication, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over authenticate or other siblings.
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.
There is significant overlap: marketplace internally includes report_bug, connection status, and install management, duplicating the dedicated report_bug, connect, and toolkit_info tools. Authenticate and connect are also related to authentication/connection, making boundaries unclear.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), and a long domain-specific snake_case (sefaz_rr_nfce_consultar). This makes the set feel chaotic and unpredictable.
Although 7 tools is a reasonable count, the server is named for SEFAZ NFC-e yet only 1 tool serves that domain. The other 6 are generic platform management tools (auth, connection, marketplace, version) that are out of place in a domain-specific server.
The domain surface is severely incomplete: a single NFC-e consultation tool, with no support for searching, listing, canceling, or other common NFC-e operations. Meanwhile, platform management is over-covered, with multiple overlapping tools and marketplace's broad feature set.