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 indicate a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds value by disclosing conditional return behavior (authenticated state, pending[], connect_url), going beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction exists.
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-load the purpose and then provide precise conditional details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 has no parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the two relevant states (connected and missing credentials) and their return values. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.
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, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inputs.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It clearly describes the tool's output scope and distinguishes it conceptually from siblings like authenticate, which likely initiates rather than reports status.
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 conditional guidance: when all providers are connected it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], and when credentials are missing it returns connect_url. This implies it is used for status checks, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it.
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: auth, connection status, marketplace, bug reporting, version, toolkit info, and the domain-specific process query. No two tools overlap in functionality, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) while others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info, tribunal_trt10_processo_consultar). The domain tool's name is unusually long and specific, further breaking uniformity.
The server is intended for TRT10 process consultation, yet 6 of 7 tools are generic platform utilities unrelated to the domain. Only one tool actually performs the stated purpose, making the set poorly scoped for the server's user-facing role.
The domain surface consists of a single query tool (tribunal_trt10_processo_consultar) with no supporting operations like search variants, history, or bulk actions. While it may cover a simple 'consult by process number' workflow, any additional need within the domain would fail, and the platform tools do not address domain-specific gaps.