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, which cover safety. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond these: it specifies the response fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and conditional output based on connection state, which is useful and non-contradictory.
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 focused sentences. The first states the main purpose, and the second adds the key conditional behaviors. No redundant or filler content.
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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential cases: all connected vs. missing credentials. It explains both the successful and fallback states, making it sufficiently complete 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters but instead focuses on return behavior, which is appropriate. Baseline for zero params is 4.
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 begins with 'Returns connection status and URLs', using a specific verb and resource. It further explains the two distinct result states (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), which clearly sets it apart from siblings like authenticate and 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?
It provides clear contextual guidance by describing what happens when providers are connected vs. credentials missing, implying when this tool should be called (e.g., to obtain a connect_url). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'authenticate', so it falls short of an explicit when/not-to-use guide.
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.
The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) have overlapping responsibilities around auth, connection status, and available tools, making it unclear which to use for a given task. The single TSE tool is distinct, but the surrounding tool boundaries are fuzzy.
Names are inconsistent: single-word verbs (connect, authenticate), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one snake_case domain tool (titulo_votacao_consultar) with no shared pattern. A consistent verb_noun or verb_object format is missing.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the scope is muddled: six are generic MCP platform utilities, while only one addresses the server's stated TSE purpose. Most tools are unrelated to voting-title queries, so they do not earn their place in a TSE-focused server.
The TSE domain is served by a single query tool with no supporting operations (e.g., no history, no batch lookups, no formatting helpers), and the platform tools create a confusing meta-layer. The actual consultation surface is minimal, and the set feels incomplete for a dedicated TSE service.