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 and idempotentHint. The description adds conditional response details (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url when credentials are missing), which goes beyond annotation data and enhances understanding without any contradiction.
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 core purpose, and then provides specific conditional behavior. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy.
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 parameterless, read-only tool, the description covers the main operational states and return values. It is slightly vague about partial connection states, but given the low complexity and existing annotations, the description is sufficiently complete.
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 everything. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline score for a zero-parameter tool is 4.
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 details about the response in different states. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than the authentication flow.
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 behavioral context for two scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives such as 'authenticate'. Usage is implied but not directly guided.
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 distinct overall purpose, but the marketplace tool is a catch-all covering search, invoke, install, prompts, and more, while authenticate and connect overlap in handling credentials and connection status. This creates some ambiguity for an agent choosing between them, especially since the domain-specific tool is the only one actually related to the server's stated purpose.
All names use lowercase snake_case, so there is no mixing of conventions, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), and the domain tool is a long descriptive phrase. This makes the set readable but not predictable.
At 7 tools, the count is within a typical range, but 6 of them are generic platform utilities that do not relate to the server's stated TSE certidão domain. This bloats the tool list for a service whose actual scope is a single lookup operation, making the count feel inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
The one domain tool covers the core action of emitting a certidão, but there are no supporting operations such as verifying a certidão, checking request history, or listing available certidões. The platform tools do not contribute to the domain, so the surface is narrowly functional but lacks any lifecycle or auxiliary operations.