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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the exact return shapes in two scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url and per-install URLs). This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior without contradicting 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and provides essential state-dependent behavior with zero waste. Every sentence earns its place, making it ideal for quick agent comprehension.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only with clear annotations), the description fully covers the behavior in both relevant states. No additional information is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 and 100% schema coverage trivially. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is given for zero parameters. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on the return values.
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, and explains the two possible outcomes (all connected vs missing credentials). It is specific about the verb (returns) and resource (connection status and URLs), but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like authenticate, so it falls short of a 5.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for checking connection status but does not mention when not to use it or name any alternative tools. There is no explicit context like 'use this to verify connectivity before authenticating'.
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 distinct purpose: authenticate handles login, connect checks status, marketplace manages MCP discovery/invocation, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays versions, toolkit_info describes installed MCPs, and the tribunal tool queries process data. No two tools overlap in functionality, so misselection is unlikely.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some snake_case verb_noun (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and the domain tool is a long, fully descriptive name (tribunal_trf6_processo_consultar) that breaks from the others entirely.
While 7 total tools is a reasonable number, the apparent scope is a domain-specific tribunal process server, yet 6 of the 7 tools are generic MCP platform utilities. This leaves only one tool actually serving the domain, which feels too thin and misaligned with the server's stated purpose.
For a tribunal process server, the only operation is a generic consult (tribunal_trf6_processo_consultar). There are no tools for searching by case number, listing processes, or retrieving detailed case information. The platform tools don't address the domain, leaving significant gaps that would require workarounds or manual user intervention.