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 established. The description adds useful context by specifying exactly what the state contains, which goes beyond the bare annotation. No contradictions with annotations.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the returned information. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool returns. It enumerates all key aspects of the toolkit state, making it self-sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.
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, and the schema reflects this with an empty properties object. The rubric baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details since none exist.
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'), and enumerates the specific data returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or marketplace, which have different scopes.
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 (e.g., to inspect toolkit state) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tools like show_version could overlap, but no guidance is provided for choosing between them.
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 'marketplace' tool is a catch-all that handles search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, and more, overlapping with 'toolkit_info' (installed state) and 'connect' (connection status). 'authenticate' and 'connect' also have blurry boundaries around authentication/connection.
Tool names mix Portuguese (anbima_certificado_consultar) and English (authenticate, connect, marketplace), and follow no consistent pattern: some are verbs, some are nouns, and 'marketplace' is a broad noun while others are simple imperatives.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but the mix of one domain-specific tool and six generic platform tools makes the scope feel scattershot. The count matches a platform utility server, not a focused Anbima certification server.
For the implied domain of Anbima certification consultation, only one tool exists, leaving obvious gaps like listing certifications or retrieving detailed records. The platform tools are near-complete, but they don't serve the Anbima purpose, so the overall surface is severely incomplete for the named domain.