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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only profile. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the exact return shapes for both connected and missing-credential scenarios. This provides valuable context without contradicting 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?
The description is two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence. Each sentence adds distinct conditional information without redundancy. This is optimally concise.
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?
Given the zero-parameter interface and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return behavior. It fully describes what is returned in both likely states (all connected vs. missing credentials). For a simple read-only status tool, this is 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 baseline is 4. The input schema is an empty object with no properties to explain. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to document.
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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'connection status and URLs.' It also explains conditional behavior (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate. This is a clear, specific purpose.
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: it is for checking connection status, not for initiating authentication. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, only implying that missing credentials yield a connect_url. With sibling tools like authenticate and toolkit_info, more explicit differentiation would be ideal.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, but authenticate and connect both relate to connection/auth and could cause confusion. The marketplace tool is broad but self-contained.
Naming is inconsistent: bare verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and one Portuguese noun-verb (veiculo_fipe_consultar). No uniform pattern or language.
The raw count of 7 is reasonable, but the toolset mixes generic platform management tools with a single vehicle-specific lookup, making the toolkit feel unfocused relative to the server's stated FIPE purpose.
The core FIPE consultation is covered via plate/chassis lookup with market value. Minor gaps like historical values or batch queries exist but are not essential for the primary workflow.