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 mark this as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds behavioral detail beyond those hints: it explains the `authenticated:true` and `pending[]` condition, and the `connect_url` returned when credentials are missing. This is useful context not inferable from annotations alone.
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 long, front-loads the primary purpose, and adds only essential conditional details. Every sentence contributes meaning without 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with supportive annotations, the description sufficiently covers both outcome states and the meaning of returned fields. No output schema is needed, and the provided detail is adequate.
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 schema fully covers the parameter surface. The description does not need to explain parameters, and no additional semantic burden falls on it.
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 object: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' This clearly names the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status reporting rather than credential exchange.
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 about when different output states occur (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like authenticate or how it relates to them. Usage is implied rather than directly stated.
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 generic platform tools overlap in purpose: authenticate and connect both deal with credentials/status, while connect and toolkit_info both report connection state. The marketplace tool is overloaded with dozens of sub-actions, making it hard to distinguish from other tools at a glance.
Tool names mix patterns: some are verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), and the domain-specific tool uses a long composite (tribunal_trt8_processo_consultar). No clear convention is followed consistently across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but only one is related to the server's stated purpose (Tribunal TRT8 consultation). The other six are generic MCP platform utilities that could apply to any server, making the toolset poorly scoped for its domain.
The single consultation tool covers the basic query need, but there are no supporting domain tools (e.g., case list, search filter, or multi-query operations). The generic tools do not address domain-specific gaps, so the surface feels incomplete for a legal consultation service.