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, establishing the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying exactly what state information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and tool counts), which is behaviorally relevant beyond the bare hints.
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, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists key details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.
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 status tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned. It enumerates all major components of the toolkit state, providing sufficient context for an agent to decide to invoke it.
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 coverage is 100% (empty properties). Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters requiring explanation.
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') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with an enumeration of included details: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts. This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like show_version.
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 this is the tool to call when you need the toolkit's state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like show_version. No exclusions or alternative references 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.
Multiple platform utility tools overlap: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all deal with connection/auth state, while marketplace bundles search, invoke, install, billing, and prompt library functions into one tool. The only domain-specific tool, bpc_consultar, is clearly distinct but the rest have blurred boundaries.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses an underscore-prefixed convention (bpc_consultar). Mixed styles make it hard to predict tool names.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server is ostensibly for BPC consultation, and only one tool addresses that domain. The rest are generic platform utilities that seem bolted on, making the set feel bloated for the stated purpose and under-delivering on the core domain.
For a BPC server, the surface is severely incomplete: only one consult operation exists, with no support for other related actions. The platform utility tools don't fill this gap; they serve a different purpose entirely, leaving the BPC workflow with a dead end.