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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating exactly what state information is returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count), going beyond the generic annotation.
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 core function ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then appends the specific details. Every word contributes meaning; no filler or redundancy.
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 info tool, the description fully specifies the return content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). There is no output schema, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive. No major gaps.
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 need not clarify any parameter semantics. Per the rubric, this earns a baseline of 4; the description correctly avoids mentioning parameters that do not exist.
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 pinpoints the exact resource ('current toolkit state') along with concrete components: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or 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 tool is for inspecting toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., show_version for version info) or provide any exclusions. The guidance is only implicit through the listed return values.
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 role: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version info, toolkit inspection, and CEP lookup. There is minor overlap between connect and toolkit_info (both show connection status) and between authenticate and marketplace (both handle credentials), but descriptions are detailed enough to avoid misselection.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), verb-noun (report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese phrase (busca_cep_consultar). Mixing languages and styles creates confusion about the naming convention.
Seven tools is a well-scoped count for a platform-style server that handles authentication, marketplace, connection management, and a core CEP lookup. Each tool serves a distinct function and none feels extraneous.
For the apparent CEP domain, the palette is thin: only one tool (busca_cep_consultar) and it only maps address to CEP, lacking a reverse CEP-to-address lookup. The platform tools are fairly complete for managing MCPs, but the domain-specific coverage has a notable gap.