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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by describing conditional outputs: authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This gives the agent a model of what to expect, though partial-connection states are not explicitly described.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the conditional details. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition of annotation information or unnecessary filler.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description does a solid job explaining return values in the two most common states. The mention of 'empty pending[]' when connected and 'connect_url' when credentials are missing gives enough of a model for an agent to interpret results, though partial connectivity semantics are left implicit.
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 an empty input schema, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. There is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry, so the baseline of 4 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also gives two concrete response states, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' that perform an auth flow rather than report status. An agent can tell this is the status-check tool without opening any schema.
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 the tool to call when you need to check whether providers are connected, but it never explicitly says 'use this instead of authenticate' or provides when-not guidance. The conditional return behavior allows an agent to infer common use cases, but no alternatives are named.
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.
Many tools have overlapping boundaries: arquivos_create vs arquivos_put both add files, configuracoes_list vs configuracoes_list_get vs ini_config are three config-listing variants, and sindicos_list vs sindicos_list_get vs responsaveis_list vs usuario_list are four person-listing tools with similar semantics. The recurring _list vs _list_get suffix pattern across resources (inadimplencia, planocontas, configuracoes, sindicos) makes selection genuinely ambiguous.
The superlogica_<resource>_<action> prefix is consistent, but action verbs are a chaotic mix of English (create, delete, update) and Portuguese (desfazer, estornar, liquidar, desinvalidar), and HTTP-method suffixes are semantically inverted (malotes_put creates while malotes_post edits; despesas_post edits). Platform tools (authenticate, marketplace, toolkit_info) break the pattern entirely, and there is a typo in ocorrencias_susgestoes.
120 tools is an extreme count, far beyond the 50+ threshold for a mismatch. Even granting the breadth of a condominium-management domain, the surface looks like an uncurated endpoint-by-endpoint dump of the entire Superlógica API rather than a designed tool set.
The core domain is remarkably well covered: receitas, despesas, acordos, cobranças, unidades, condomínios, ocorrências, reservas, tickets, processos judiciais, and relatórios all have substantial lifecycle coverage including create/edit/delete/liquidar/estornar operations. Minor gaps exist (no delete for fornecedores or comunicados, no get-by-id for condominios/cobrancas, no ticket status update), but agents can work around most of them.