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 read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context by explaining the authenticated:true and pending[] fields, as well as connect_url behavior when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations.
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, with the main purpose in the first clause. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place by explaining different response states.
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 covers the two key states (connected and missing credentials) but could optionally detail partial connection states or the format of URLs. Still, for a simple status tool, it is reasonably 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the return behavior rather than parameters.
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, and elaborates on what is returned in different states. It distinguishes from sibling 'authenticate' by indicating this is a status read, not an authentication action.
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, and the return behavior makes the context clear. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'authenticate'.
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 tools serve mostly distinct purposes, but the marketplace tool is a broad catch-all that overlaps with the domain tool (can search for CPF-related MCPs) and includes many sub-actions. Additionally, connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, creating some ambiguity. Detailed descriptions help, but selection risk remains.
Tool names are all lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace), and only a few follow a verb_noun style. The domain-specific tool uses a different convention (tj_certidao_consultar). This mixed naming makes it hard to predict tool behavior from names alone.
The 7-tool count is within a reasonable range, but the server is named for a specific domain (TJ certificates) yet devotes 6 of 7 tools to generic platform management. This creates a scope mismatch where the domain surface is a single tool and the platform tools feel out of place, though the number itself is not excessive.
The only domain tool covers the core consult operation, but there are no other certidão-related tools (e.g., list past requests, check status, or generate a specific variant). The platform tools do not address the domain's completeness, leaving significant gaps for typical certificate workflows.