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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about what state is reported, including connection statuses and account linkage, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the informational nature of the tool.
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 leads with the core purpose and then lists the four key output components. There is no redundant wording or filler, and every phrase adds information.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing what the agent will receive. It enumerates all major return categories: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter informational 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 and the schema is complete with an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.
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 a concrete resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, 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 prefer it over siblings or when not to use it. The intended usage is reasonably inferable from the content, but there is no direct guidance.
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 twelve busca_google_* tools are each tied to a distinct Google vertical, so selecting the right one for a search task is usually straightforward. The only real ambiguity is between busca_google_lugares and busca_google_mapas, and between authenticate/connect, but the descriptions do clarify their different use cases.
The core search tools follow a highly consistent busca_google_<category> snake_case pattern in Portuguese. However, the six platform-management tools use generic English names like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and toolkit_info, creating a mixed convention across the set.
At 18 tools, the server is in the borderline-heavy range. The 12 search tools are individually justified, but the inclusion of 6 unrelated platform/metadata tools makes the overall count feel inflated for a server titled 'Buscador Google'.
The search surface is impressively broad: web, news, images, videos, shopping, academic, patents, places, maps, reviews, suggestions, and page reading are all covered. Minor niche Google surfaces like Trends or Books are absent, but core search workflows have no dead ends.