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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat safety info. It adds value by detailing what specific state is returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the basic read-only hint. 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 then lists the key payload elements. Every word is informative and there is no filler or repetition of the title.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return value by enumerating all included parts (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is sufficient for an agent to understand what information will be provided.
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?
There are 0 parameters, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since the input schema is empty and no additional meaning 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 a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like show_version or authenticate.
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 tool is for retrieving toolkit-level state, which implies it should be used when the agent needs an overview of connections and catalog counts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full 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 set mixes a single domain-specific tool with several generic platform utilities. connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and authenticate overlaps with connect's authentication flow, causing confusion about which tool to use for login/connection status.
Tool names are inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun snake_case (report_bug, show_version), and a Portuguese snake_case (auxilio_emergencial_consultar). No predictable pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but most tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are unrelated to the server's implied purpose of consulting Auxílio Emergencial. The count feels padded with platform utilities rather than domain-relevant functionality.
For the domain suggested by the server name, only one operation exists (auxilio_emergencial_consultar). There are no batch, update, or other related operations, and the other tools don't contribute to domain coverage, leaving obvious gaps for any real-world use case.