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. The description adds meaningful context by specifying exactly what state information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear expectation of the tool's output.
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 is front-loaded with the main action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then efficiently lists the included elements. 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, zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool does and what information it returns. The annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing else 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 description doesn't need to explain parameter usage. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and no additional parameter information is required.
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 identifies the tool's function with the verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource: the current toolkit state. It enumerates exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which distinguishes it from sibling action-oriented tools like authenticate or connect.
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 provides clear context that this is a state-inspection tool, implying it should be used when you need an overview of the toolkit's MCPs, connections, and accounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the nature of the tool makes its use case obvious and distinct from the action-oriented siblings.
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 single domain tool (antecedentes_policia_civil_consultar) is clearly distinct from the platform utility tools, which have well-separated purposes (authentication, connection status, marketplace search/invoke, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state). No two tools appear to perform the same action.
The domain tool uses a long Portuguese noun-phrase verb (antecedentes_policia_civil_consultar) while all other tools use short English imperative or noun phrases (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). This mixture of languages and naming patterns is inconsistent and makes the set feel disjointed.
Seven tools is within a typical range, but the set is heavily weighted toward generic MCP platform tools that have nothing to do with the server's stated domain (criminal background checks). Only one tool actually serves the domain, making the count feel inflated and unfocused for the apparent purpose.
The platform tools are comprehensive, covering authentication, connection, marketplace discovery, invocation, bug reporting, versioning, and toolkit state. However, the domain surface is severely thin—only a single query operation with no supporting options (e.g., validation, different certificate types, or status tracking). For a server named 'Antecedentes', this leaves notable domain gaps.