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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the returned content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) but does not contradict annotations. It provides information beyond the annotations about what the 'state' includes, which is useful. No contradictions found.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state'), followed by specific elements of that state. No waste, concise, and structured effectively for quick understanding.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and relatively simple purpose, the description is complete. It clearly lists what the response will contain, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function. It could potentially describe the format or structure of the response, but with no output schema, the description provides adequate context.
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 provides no parameter detail. The description explains what is returned (the state) which compensates for the lack of parameters. Since there are no inputs, the description effectively describes the output semantics, giving it a high score per the rubric (0 params = baseline 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?
Description clearly states the tool returns current toolkit state with specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). Verb 'returns' with a precise resource 'current toolkit state' distinguishes it from sibling tools which are domain-specific actions (e.g., advbox_* operations, connect, authenticate). Unlike siblings like 'show_version' or 'marketplace', this focuses on the overall toolkit state, making its purpose unique.
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 usage for checking toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it or provide alternatives directly. However, among siblings, there's no other tool that retrieves overall state, so the usage context is clear but not explicitly contrasted.
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 advbox_* tools are clearly distinct by resource (customer, lawsuit, transaction, post, movement) and action (create, get, list, update). Overlapping tools like lawsuit_history, lawsuit_movements, and last_movements have clear scoping in descriptions. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) are separate and well-defined.
The advbox_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_customer, get_lawsuit, list_transactions). The non-advbox tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) use different naming but are auxiliary and have clear names. Minor deviation but overall predictable.
With 26 tools, the set is on the heavy side, but the legal practice domain is broad, covering customers, lawsuits, transactions, posts, and movements, plus platform management tools. Each tool has a defined role, though some could be consolidated (e.g., the multiple movement-related list tools).
Core workflows for customers, lawsuits, and transactions are covered with create/get/list/update, but there are missing operations: no update_customer, no deletes for any resource, no get_post or update_post despite list and create. The settings tool helps discover IDs, but the lifecycle is incomplete.