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, and destructiveHint=false, which fully covers the safe, read-only nature. The description adds specific behavioral details about what is returned (the exact state elements), which is valuable beyond the annotations. 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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that lists all key information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately provides the return contents. Every word earns its place, and it is highly readable.
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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what information to expect, which is sufficient for selection and invocation. There is nothing missing for this level of complexity.
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 no parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool; the description does not need to add anything. It does not provide any misleading parameter information.
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 specifies the tool's purpose with a clear verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (version info) and agger_list_accounts (account-specific listing).
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 implicitly communicates that this is for retrieving a high-level overview of the toolkit, useful when the agent needs a snapshot of MCPs and accounts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for specific account details), but the context from sibling names (agger_list_accounts) provides a clear alternative. Minor gap: no explicit 'use this instead of X' 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.
Each tool targets a distinct function: CEP lookup, quote validation, dashboard stats, account listing, business listing, insurer listing, and separate platform utilities for auth, connectivity, marketplace, bug reports, version, and toolkit state. No two tools overlap in purpose, so an agent can clearly differentiate them.
Tool names mix conventions: some are bare nouns (agger_cep, agger_negocios, marketplace), some use verb_noun (agger_list_accounts, report_bug, show_version), one is noun_verb (agger_cotacao_validar), and several are generic single verbs (authenticate, connect). This inconsistency makes the naming pattern unpredictable and harder to infer.
The 12-tool set is well-scoped: 6 domain-specific Agger tools cover the core insurance broker workflows, and 6 generic platform tools handle authentication, connectivity, marketplace operations, and diagnostics. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary bloat.
The domain coverage is partial: the server supports listing businesses, validating quotes, and viewing insurers, but lacks create/update/delete operations for quotes or detailed single-item views. Some gaps exist (e.g., no create quote, no get_business_detail), but agents can work around them by using the list and validation tools, and the platform utilities address meta-level needs.