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 safety profile. The description adds meaningful contextual detail about the return payload (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond what annotations alone provide. No contradiction 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every phrase adds value, listing the specific data returned without any redundant or filler content.
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 parameterless, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains both what the tool does and what data it returns, making it fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameter semantics, and no further compensation 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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and names the resource 'current toolkit state', then enumerates exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like show_version or connect, which have different purposes.
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 its use case—when you need the toolkit state and connection status—but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. The absence of parameters and the self-contained nature make the context clear enough, but it stops short of explicit 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.
The domain-specific tool is clearly distinct, but several platform tools overlap in scope: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all relate to connection/auth status, and marketplace is a multi-purpose tool that could be confused with the others. Overall boundaries are mostly clear due to detailed descriptions, but not perfectly distinct.
Tool names are inconsistent: the domain tool uses a long snake_case phrase, while platform tools mix single nouns (authenticate, connect, marketplace) with underscored compounds (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). No clear naming convention is applied across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the composition is mismatched: only one tool relates to the server's stated domain (Antecedentes Polícia Federal), while the other six are generic MCP platform utilities. This makes the count feel padded for a domain-specific server.
For the core domain, the single consult tool fully covers the necessary query operation, and the infrastructure tools (auth, connect, marketplace) support the workflow. Minor gaps exist like batch queries or PDF export, but the surface is generally complete for its stated purpose.