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?
Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds concrete behavioral details: returns authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and returns connect_url + per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This is useful context, though it does not cover partial connection 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then conditional details. No filler or 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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the two primary outcomes well. It might be slightly more complete if it addressed partial provider connections, but overall it 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 is empty. The description naturally needs to explain no parameters, and it does not need to add param semantics. Baseline of 4 applies.
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 returns connection status and URLs, and distinguishes two key conditions (all providers connected vs missing credentials). This is a specific verb+resource statement that differentiates 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 implies the tool is used to check connection status before authenticating, based on the conditional behaviors. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like authenticate, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.
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 are clearly distinct: authenticate handles login, connect shows status, marketplace discovers and runs tools, report_bug is for feedback, show_version is for versions, toolkit_info shows installed state, and the TSE tool is a specific query. However, connect and toolkit_info both touch on connection status, which could cause minor confusion.
Names follow no single pattern: some are single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun snake_case (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun_noun (toolkit_info), and the TSE tool is a long snake_case phrase (tse_quitacao_eleitoral_consultar). This mix makes the set feel inconsistent and unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the set is split between general MCP platform management and a single TSE-specific consultation. This split makes the server feel unfocused and broader than its stated purpose, though it is not extreme.
The TSE domain is severely underrepresented, with only one consultation tool and no associated operations like validation or history. The platform management tools are fairly complete but belong to a different domain, leaving the actual stated purpose with significant gaps.