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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about the specific content of the returned state, enhancing transparency beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 that front-loads the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and enumerates key details. No redundant or filler 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?
For a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return value at a high level. It could include more detail about output format or possible statuses, but the essential context is present, and annotations cover safety.
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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantic burden. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than inputs.
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'), then enumerates the exact data provided (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes 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 implies usage: when you need an overview of the toolkit's state, this is the tool. It provides clear context without explicit exclusion or alternative instructions, which is acceptable for a simple read-only info tool.
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 clearly distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, beneficios_sociais_consultar queries benefits, others handle platform status and actions. However, 'marketplace' is a multi-purpose tool that combines search, describe, invoke, install, etc., which could be confusing for an agent deciding which action to use.
Tool names show mixed conventions: simple verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), a noun (marketplace), a noun phrase (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese snake_case phrase (beneficios_sociais_consultar). No consistent verb_noun or camelCase pattern is followed.
7 tools is within a typical count, but only one tool (beneficios_sociais_consultar) is domain-specific. The other six are generic platform utilities (marketplace, connect, report_bug, etc.) that do not belong in a server dedicated to social benefits, making the set feel bloated and off-purpose.
The core query tool covers the main need of consulting consolidated social benefits for a CPF, which might be sufficient for a read-only public information service. However, the server lacks any supplementary benefit-related operations (e.g., historical queries, filters) and the platform tools do not contribute to domain coverage, leaving the overall surface thin.