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 indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds conditional details about return values (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url for missing credentials), which goes beyond the annotation and provides useful context.
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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No redundant wording, every sentence adds value.
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?
The description covers the two main scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials) and implies partial state via pending[]. It is sufficiently complete for a status tool with no output schema, though it does not detail URL structure or error cases.
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 description does not need to explain parameters. The schema is empty, and the description appropriately omits parameter details; baseline for 0 params 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 the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditional outcomes for connected vs missing credentials. This distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like authenticate, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 this is for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like authenticate or toolkit_info. It provides behavioral context but lacks direct usage guidance or exclusions.
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: authentication, connection status, marketplace exploration, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. However, 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report on connection status, which could cause some confusion for an agent deciding which to call.
Naming is highly inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace), verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version), noun-based names (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese verb_noun_noun phrase (veiculo_frotas_consultar). There is no uniform convention or predictable verb/noun ordering.
Although there are 7 tools, 6 of them are generic platform management utilities unrelated to the server's stated purpose ('Veículos do Proprietário'). The single domain-specific tool is buried among unrelated infrastructure tools, making the count feel bloated and unfocused for the apparent vehicle-query scope.
For a server named 'Veículos do Proprietário', only one vehicle-related operation exists (consult by CPF/CNPJ). There is no way to list, update, delete, or otherwise manage vehicle records. The tool offers a single lookup with no CRUD lifecycle coverage, leaving the domain surface severely incomplete.