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 context beyond those hints by specifying what 'toolkit state' includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful for setting expectations.
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, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. Every phrase adds information ('installed MCPs', 'connection status', 'accounts', 'catalog tools'), with no wasted words.
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 (no params, no output schema), the description fully covers the return value by listing all key components. There is no missing context that an agent would need to know before calling.
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 there is nothing to explain at the parameter level. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description already clarifies what the tool reports, making additional parameter semantics unnecessary.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This unambiguously differentiates it from siblings like show_version and marketplace.
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 as an informational/status query but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not state 'use this when you need the full toolkit state' or contrast with similar tools like 'show_version' or 'connect'.
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 (antt_transportadora_consultar) is clearly distinct from the platform utilities. However, connect and toolkit_info both report connection/status information, creating slight overlap. The other tools serve separate purposes (auth, marketplace, bug reporting, version).
Tool names are inconsistent in style: the domain tool uses a long snake_case prefix, while the platform tools use short verbs (authenticate, connect), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), or verb_noun (report_bug, show_version). No clear pattern ties them together.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable, but the composition is unbalanced—only one tool directly serves the ANTT domain while the other six are generic platform/management tools. The set feels like a standard wrapper with a single domain functionality tacked on.
For the stated purpose of querying ANTT carrier regularity, the single consult tool covers the essential operation (by CPF, CNPJ, or RNTRC). It lacks any supplementary domain actions, but the core query is fully addressed. The platform tools fill typical admin needs, so no critical gaps for the primary use case.