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, and the description does not contradict them. It adds context about what the returned state contains but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits, caching, or session-specific data.
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 well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then listing the included components in a readable list. There is no wordy or redundant 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent will get: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It does not specify the exact output format, but that is beyond the minimal requirement for such a simple tool.
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 description correctly avoids discussing any. With no schema details to elaborate, the absence of parameter documentation is perfectly appropriate, and the description adds clarity by stating what the tool returns.
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 specifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with detailed contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version 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 makes the usage context obvious: it is an overview/status tool for the whole toolkit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as show_version or connect, leaving some room for ambiguity in tool selection.
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 core query tool and platform utilities are distinct, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status and could confuse an agent. The marketplace tool is multi-functional but clearly scoped. Overall, purposes are mostly separable.
Names mix English and Portuguese (authenticate vs. beneficiario_final_consultar) and use inconsistent patterns: verb (connect, authenticate), noun (marketplace), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version). The Portuguese tool reverses the typical verb_noun order.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but most are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated purpose of beneficiary final queries. The core domain is served by a single tool, while the rest feel bolted on.
For the beneficiary final domain, the single query tool covers the basic use case, but there are no supporting operations like batch queries, history, or credit management. The platform tools are general but don't address domain-specific needs, leaving the surface incomplete for a dedicated compliance service.