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, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by explaining the two possible outcomes: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand response states.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the essential behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides conditional details. No unnecessary words or repetitive information, achieving maximum clarity with minimal length.
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), the description covers the main outcomes and provides enough context for an agent to understand what to expect. It explains both the fully connected and missing-credentials states. However, it does not address partial connection scenarios, which could be a minor gap, but for a status-checking tool, the description is sufficiently complete for effective use.
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 description does not need to add parameter semantics. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none, and it does not introduce any false information.
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 function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' This is a specific verb+resource pattern that distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace', focusing on status retrieval rather than actions. It also mentions key return values (authenticated:true and pending[]), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state 'use this to check connection status before authenticating' or mention any exclusions. While the read-only nature implies safe usage, there is no clear context about when it should be invoked, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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.
The core tribunal tool is distinct, but several platform tools overlap: marketplace also covers connection status, installs, billing, and bug reporting, blurring boundaries with connect, toolkit_info, and report_bug. authenticate and connect also have overlapping auth/connection responsibilities, so an agent could easily pick the wrong tool.
Names are readable and mostly lowercase/underscore style, but the pattern is mixed: single verbs like authenticate/connect, noun-only marketplace, verb_noun like report_bug/show_version, noun_noun like toolkit_info, and a long Portuguese domain-specific name. There is no fully consistent convention across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable raw count, but six of them are generic MCP platform management tools while only one serves the server's stated Tribunal TRT4 purpose. This is an inappropriate scope: the platform tooling crowds out the actual domain functionality.
The tribunal domain surface is essentially one consult operation, which may cover a simple single-lookup workflow but offers no variants for different search inputs or result navigation. The platform meta-tools add breadth, but they do not fill domain-specific gaps; if the intended use case is broader than a single consultation, the surface is thin.