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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing concrete behavioral details: it returns 'authenticated:true' and empty 'pending[]' when all providers are connected, and returns 'connect_url' when credentials are missing. It does not repeat annotations. Slight credit reduction because it doesn't mention rate limits, caching, or latency behavior, but it goes beyond the annotations meaningfully.
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 with no fluff. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the general behavior, the second explains the conditional logic. It is concise, structured, and easy to parse.
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 no-parameter status tool with idempotent and read-only hints, the description covers the essential behavior and edge cases (all connected vs missing credentials). No output schema is present, so the description of the response fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) is sufficient for an agent to use the result. The complexity is low, and the description fully covers it.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there are no parameters to document. The description compensates appropriately by clarifying the response semantics, which is the main source of ambiguity for a no-arg tool. The baseline of 4 is appropriate given the schema is fully covered and the description adds contextual behavior.
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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, including specific fields like authenticated and pending, and distinguishes behavior when all providers are connected vs missing credentials. It is distinct from sibling tools, which cover authentication, marketplace, version info, and other domains.
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 as a read-only health/status check and distinguishes when it returns connect_url versus empty pending[]. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the clear read-only status semantics and sibling tool names (authenticate, toolkit_info) make the intended context clear.
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: marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, and the consultation tool each serve unique functions. The only potential confusion is between 'authenticate' and 'connect', but their descriptions clarify that one handles token acquisition and the other reports connection status.
Tool names mix conventions inconsistently: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), snake_case verb-noun (report_bug, show_version), noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese snake_case domain tool (tribunal_trf5_processo_consultar). While readable, there is no unified naming pattern.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped. Six platform management/utility tools plus one domain-specific consultation tool form a compact set where each tool earns its place, and the count is well within the ideal range.
The server's primary domain purpose is consulting TRF5 processes, and the single domain tool fulfills that core action. Platform coverage via marketplace and toolkit_info is solid. Minor gaps exist—such as specialized process actions or additional query parameters—but the core workflow is not broken.