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 readOnly and idempotent hints, and the description adds valuable behavioral details about response states: authenticated:true and connect_url when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds meaningful information. There is no wasted wording.
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?
The description covers the main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) but does not address partially-connected scenarios. Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), this is reasonably complete, but there is a minor gap.
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 is fully covered. No parameter information is needed, and the description does not need to compensate. 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 clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific outcome conditions. It is distinct from siblings like authenticate, which performs a different 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 this is for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. The conditional outcomes give some context, but no direct guidance.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: authenticate handles login, connect reports connection status, marketplace manages MCP discovery/execution, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays version, toolkit_info shows installed state, and the last performs the actual transparency query. No two tools overlap in function.
Naming is inconsistent: English platform tools use short verbs/nouns (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), while the sole domain tool is a long Portuguese phrase (transparencia_indicadores_pj_consultar). The verb is at the end and the language differs, breaking any predictable pattern.
Seven tools is within a typical range, but the count is skewed: six are generic platform utilities and only one serves the server's stated purpose (PJ indicators). The composition feels unbalanced, though not extreme in either direction.
The domain surface is minimal—only a single consult operation for CNPJ indicators. There are no discovery or metadata tools (e.g., listing available indicators or describing fields), which limits agent flexibility. The platform tools cover their own lifecycle, but the transparency domain itself lacks depth.