Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| 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 readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing what the returned state includes (connection status, accounts, tool counts), but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as potential latency or the exact structure of the response. This is consistent with the calibration example where annotations carry the safety burden and the description adds 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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific components included. No redundant or filler content.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns, and it does so comprehensively by naming all key data points (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It does not specify the response format, but for a simple informational tool this is sufficient and no other context is needed.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description is not required to explain any parameters and correctly focuses on the return value.
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 the current toolkit state and enumerates its contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report state.
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 when to use this tool (when you need a snapshot of toolkit state and connections) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like show_version or connect provide different functionality, but no direct 'use this instead' guidance is given.
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.
The set mixes a single domain-specific tool (acordos_leniencia_consultar) with several generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). While most platform tools have distinct purposes, connect and toolkit_info both report status, and marketplace's broad meta-capabilities overlap with the dedicated tools, creating boundary confusion.
Tool names use inconsistent conventions: Portuguese snake_case (acordos_leniencia_consultar) alongside English single words and compound names (authenticate, report_bug, toolkit_info). There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, and the language switch adds inconsistency.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the scope is mismatched: the server name implies a leniency-agreement domain, yet six of seven tools are generic MCP platform utilities. This makes the tool set feel bloated with unrelated functionality or severely underpopulated with domain-specific tools.
The only domain-relevant tool is acordos_leniencia_consultar, a single query operation. There are no other read or write operations for leniency agreements (e.g., listing, filtering, detailed views), making the surface severely incomplete for the stated domain.