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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description adds useful behavioral details about conditional responses and returned URLs. This goes beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.
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-loaded with the core purpose, and adds only meaningful conditional details. There is no filler or repetition of structured data.
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 simple status/URL tool with no parameters, no output schema, and rich safety annotations, the description covers the two relevant states and their corresponding outputs. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The absence of parameter information is acceptable given the empty input schema.
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, with specific output details such as authenticated:true and connect_url. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, which perform authentication rather than reporting 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 gives clear conditional context: when all providers are connected the result is authenticated:true with empty pending[], and when credentials are missing it returns connect_url. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the intended usage is 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.
The marketplace tool bundles many capabilities—search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, and even report_bug—which overlaps with the standalone report_bug tool. authenticate and connect also share an auth/connection boundary, so an agent could easily misselect among the meta-tools.
Tool names mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), noun-style names (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb_noun names (report_bug, show_version), and a long Portuguese domain-specific name. There is no consistent naming convention across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count overall, but six of them are generic platform/admin tools while only one is domain-specific to the named Tribunal TRT purpose. The set feels like a small platform bundle with one query tool attached rather than a focused domain server.
The platform side is fairly complete with authentication, connectivity, versioning, toolkit info, bug reporting, and marketplace operations. The tribunal side is thin: only a single consultation tool exists, with no additional query modes or supporting operations, though a read-only official consultation may not require full CRUD.