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 destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing what information is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and efficiently lists the contained information. No filler or repetition of schema annotations.
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?
Given zero parameters, a read-only annotation set, and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and return contents. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none to document.
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 returns the current toolkit state and enumerates the specific contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings 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 usage for checking toolkit/connection status, and the read-only nature is evident. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with this functionality, so clear context is provided without exclusions.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct function: authentication, the specific Bolsa Família query, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit info. There is slight overlap between `connect` and `toolkit_info` regarding connection status, but descriptions clarify their different scopes.
Tool names mix languages and conventions: English verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), snake_case Portuguese (`bolsa_familia_consultar`), single-word nouns (`marketplace`), and verb_noun in English (`report_bug`, `show_version`). This inconsistency makes the naming pattern unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the scope is muddled: six tools are generic MCP.AI platform operations while only one is specific to the 'Bolsa Família' domain. This mismatch makes the count feel bloated for the apparent purpose of a benefits query server.
If the domain is Bolsa Família, the surface is severely incomplete (only a single consult operation, no eligibility or benefit details). If the domain is the mcp.ai platform, it is fairly complete (auth, marketplace, toolkit, feedback, version), but the server name suggests otherwise. Notable gaps exist under either interpretation.