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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which cover safety. The description adds value by explaining exactly what is returned in different scenarios (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), providing behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide conditional behaviors. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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 simple no-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the key return values and states adequately. However, it does not specify the overall response format (e.g., JSON structure), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate here.
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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status rather than performing authentication. Specific conditions are provided for different states.
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?
Usage context is implied through the description of states (all connected vs. credentials missing), but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like authenticate or toolkit_info. It does not state exclusions or name alternative tools.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct: platform management (connect, authenticate, marketplace, etc.) vs. the single domain query tool. The only potential confusion is between connect and authenticate, but their descriptions clarify the different steps.
Naming is inconsistent: mixed languages (English vs. Portuguese), mixed styles (single-word verbs like 'connect' vs. underscore-separated 'show_version' vs. the long descriptive 'transparencia_servidores_remuneracao_consultar'), and no clear pattern across all tools.
7 tools is reasonable in absolute terms, but the count is skewed: only one tool actually serves the server's stated 'Remuneração de Servidores' purpose, while the other six are generic platform utilities that feel misplaced in a domain-specific server.
The domain surface is severely incomplete: only a single query (CPF + month/year) is provided, with no other operations like listing, filtering, or retrieving detailed records. The platform tools don't address the remuneration domain.