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. The description adds output behavior: explaining the response structure (authenticated, pending, connect_url) based on connection state, which goes beyond the 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds distinct information. No wasted words.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description explains the key return cases (all connected vs credentials missing). However, it doesn't cover partial connection states, which could be a slight gap. Still, it is complete enough for a simple status-check tool.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist.
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 states 'Returns connection status and URLs' with a specific verb and resource. It further explains two distinct outcomes (authenticated:true vs connect_url), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'authenticate'.
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 context for two scenarios (all providers connected vs credentials missing) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. Usage is implied rather than explicitly 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.
Most tools serve distinct platform functions (auth, connection status, marketplace, bug reporting, version, toolkit info), and the TRT consultation tool is clearly separate. Some overlap exists between 'authenticate' and 'connect' (both deal with connection/auth state), but their roles are sufficiently differentiated by descriptions.
Tool names mix English and Portuguese, and follow no uniform pattern: some are lowercase verbs (authenticate, connect), one is an underscored lowercase noun (toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a Portuguese verb_noun structure (trt_processos_consultar). This inconsistency makes the set feel disjointed.
With 7 tools, the count is not excessive, but the scope is muddled: six generic platform tools are paired with one domain-specific tool. For a server named 'Processos TRT', the majority are unrelated, while for a platform server, the TRT tool seems out of place. The tool set lacks a clear, focused purpose.
For the apparent TRT domain, only a single query operation is provided (consult by CPF/CNPJ). There is no support for fetching process details by number, checking status, or any other related operations. The platform tools add broad capabilities, but they do not address gaps in the domain surface, leaving the server incomplete for its stated purpose.