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 fully covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact type of state that is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), going beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists, and the added detail is meaningful for an agent deciding whether to call this 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?
The description is a single, well-paced sentence that front-loads the main action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific components. Every element contributes meaning, and there is no filler or redundancy. Ideal conciseness for an information tool.
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 the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully specifies what an agent can expect. It enumerates all four categories of state information, making the tool's purpose and return contents unambiguous. There is no missing context that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation.
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 schema carries no burden. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details. It adds value by describing the output domain, which is more relevant than parameter semantics for a parameterless tool.
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 clear, specific verb ('Returns') and a well-defined resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what information is included (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or show_version, which serve entirely different purposes.
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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's current configuration or status. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but its unique scope makes the intended context obvious. A minor improvement would be explicit guidance like 'Use this to check setup before connecting or authenticating,' but the current wording provides clear context.
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.
Tools like authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all relate to connection/auth status, which could cause selection confusion. Meanwhile, marketplace is an extremely broad multi-action tool that overlaps conceptually with install and configure functions, though its description is detailed.
Naming is inconsistent: single-word tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) mix with verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version), while cadin_estadual_consultar and toolkit_info do not follow a predictable style. This lack of a consistent convention makes the tool set feel disjointed.
With 7 tools, the count is within the typical well-scoped range. However, the mixture of platform management utilities and a single domain-specific query function makes the overall scope ambiguous, slightly reducing the appropriateness.
Given the server name 'CADIN Estadual', the tool surface is severely incomplete—there is only one query function with no support for listing states, bulk queries, or managing query history. If the intent is a platform management server, the marketplace tool covers many operations, but the naming suggests a domain-specific service, leaving major gaps.