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 goes beyond annotations by detailing exact response behaviors for both connected and missing-credential cases. It explains the return format (authenticated, pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs) which is valuable context not present in 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, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundant phrasing.
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 read-only tool, the description fully explains expected outputs in different states. Combined with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), nothing critical is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately says nothing about parameters since none exist, and the schema is empty. No additional parameter guidance is needed.
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' - a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by describing a read-only status check rather than an 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 provides clear context: it returns status and URLs under two conditions, implying it's for checking connectivity. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like 'authenticate', but the contrast is reasonably clear from the description's emphasis on status.
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.
Several tools overlap in reporting connection and toolkit status (connect, toolkit_info, and portions of marketplace), making it ambiguous which to call. The domain-specific tool is distinct, but the platform tools blur together.
Tool names are inconsistent: some are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are noun phrases (toolkit_info, marketplace), and one is a long Portuguese phrase (transparencia_servidores_viagens_consultar). No consistent verb_noun pattern is present.
Seven tools is an acceptable count, but the server's stated purpose about transparency is served by only one tool, with six generic platform tools that dilute the focus. The count feels high for the domain and unfocused.
The domain tool only queries travel expenses by CPF, covering a narrow slice of what the server name implies. There are no other domain operations, such as listing available datasets or querying by other criteria, so the surface is significantly incomplete.