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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about the returned state's contents (connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), providing behavioral transparency beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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, well-structured sentence that packs in all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and lists the specific data points clearly.
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?
For a simple read-only introspection tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It fully describes what the tool returns, and the annotations cover safety. No additional 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids inventing any.
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's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact information provided (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, which focuses only on version info.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where it would be preferred, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tools (connect, authenticate, show_version) have overlapping but distinct purposes, yet the description provides no differentiation.
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 distinct purposes, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, which could confuse agents. marketplace is a broad umbrella with many sub-operations, adding potential ambiguity, though descriptions are detailed.
All names use snake_case, but they mix verb-only (authenticate, connect), verb-noun (report_bug, show_version), noun-noun (toolkit_info), and a compound verb-object (aml_vinculos_consultar). This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun pattern.
With 7 tools, the count is moderate, but only one tool (aml_vinculos_consultar) relates to the server's stated AML purpose. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the set feel bloated and misaligned with the server's name.
For an AML server, the tool surface is severely incomplete: only a single query operation by CPF, with no ability to explore related entities, manage results, or perform any other AML-related task. The platform utilities do not fill this gap.