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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what state information is returned (installed MCPs, connection statuses, connected accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
A single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and immediately lists the concrete information items. No filler words or redundant details.
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 no-parameter info tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the returned content. There is no missing information that would hinder an agent's ability to invoke and use the tool 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The input schema is empty and fully describes the parameter space; the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. There is nothing more to add.
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 key information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions 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 implies a clear use case: use this tool to inspect the current toolkit state. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear enough given the sibling tool names, which focus on actions rather than state inspection. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
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.
Most tools have distinct roles, but connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace.list_tools overlap in reporting connection status and installed tools, which could cause an agent to call the wrong one. The single domain tool is clearly separate, but the platform tools have some fuzzy boundaries.
Naming is inconsistent: it mixes English and Portuguese (authenticate vs bacen_inabilitados_consultar), snake_case (report_bug, show_version) and single words (connect, marketplace), and uses an unusual object-verb order in the Portuguese tool name. No clear pattern is maintained across the set.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range. However, the server is mostly platform utilities with only one domain-specific tool, making it feel like a meta-server rather than a focused BACEN domain tool, though this is not severe enough to score lower.
The single domain operation (CPF lookup) is complete for its narrow purpose, and the platform tools cover authentication, status, discovery, and support well. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no batch query or detailed historical data for inabilitados), but not enough to cause agent failures.