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?
The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It explains exactly what the tool returns in different states: 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' when connected, and 'connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs' when credentials are missing. This enriches the readOnly/idempotent hints without contradiction.
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 main purpose, followed by concise conditional behavior. Every word earns its place; no filler 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, read-only status tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and return values in the two relevant scenarios. No output schema is needed since the response are described directly. The description is complete in context.
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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly focuses on behavior instead.
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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also differentiates from siblings by focusing on status rather than authentication (authenticate), app info (toolkit_info), or other functions. The conditional behaviors (connected vs. missing credentials) further clarify the tool's role.
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 when to use the tool: to check connection status and obtain connection URLs. It provides context by describing different scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.
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: authentication, connection status, marketplace catalog/execution, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state, and the data query. There is no overlap even though marketplace is complex; it is still separate from the others.
Naming conventions are mixed: English verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and a long Portuguese name (transparencia_servidores_consultar). No consistent pattern.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range for a server that includes platform infrastructure plus a data tool. The count is not excessive, though several tools are generic platform utilities rather than domain-specific.
The domain appears to be federal employee transparency data, but only one query tool exists (by CPF). Missing other obvious query types such as by name, agency, or a listing endpoint. The platform tools are complete for their purpose but don't contribute to domain coverage.