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 establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful value by detailing exactly what state is surfaced (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond what annotations state. No contradictions with the readOnlyHint=true flag. Minor gap: no mention of errors or empty-state behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately names the resource ('toolkit state') followed by a colon-delimited list of contents. Zero waste — every word contributes to the operational meaning.
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, read-only getter with strong annotations and a detailed return-content description, the documentation is largely complete. The only minor additions could be error conditions or a note about instance-wide state, but these are not necessary for a simple tool of this nature.
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, which sets a baseline of 4 under the rubric. The description adds no parameter info, but since there are no parameters to document, the description is not expected to compensate for any schema gaps.
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') plus a concrete resource ('the current toolkit state') and elaborates with a detailed list of what that state includes: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This level of specificity clearly separates it from sibling tools like `show_version` and `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?
Usage context is implied rather than explicit — the reader can infer 'use this when you need toolkit state info' but there is no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance. For instance, it doesn't clarify when to use this versus `show_version` or `authenticate`, and no exclusions are provided.
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 are generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) rather than domain-specific, and 'marketplace' explicitly mentions CPF queries which could be confused with the BCB consult tool. 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' also overlap in providing status information.
The naming is highly inconsistent: most tools use English imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) or nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), while the only domain-specific tool uses a Portuguese noun phrase with underscore format (bcb_valores_receber_consultar). No clear pattern across the set.
Seven tools is not inherently excessive, but six of them are generic platform management features unrelated to the server's stated purpose of accessing BCB values. The count is inflated with irrelevant tools, making the server poorly scoped for its intended domain.
From a domain perspective, the single BCB consult tool covers the core need for checking 'valores a receber'. However, there is no option for related operations (e.g., scheduling, detailed reports), and the included generic tools do not contribute to domain completeness. Overall, the surface is minimal but not severely incomplete for a simple query.