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, providing a safe usage profile. The description goes beyond annotations by detailing what specific state information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful context. No contradictions with annotations.
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 packs all necessary information without redundancy. Every clause adds value, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.
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?
This is a simple no-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description fully enumerates the return contents. It provides a complete picture of what the tool exposes, and there are no other operational details needed given the trivial complexity.
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 input schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage. Per the scoring guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to explain parameters.
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 starts with 'Returns the current toolkit state' which is a specific verb and resource, and then lists the exact types of information (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than provide state information.
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 makes it clear this is a read-only informational tool, so an agent would use it when needing a status overview. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is unambiguous and there are no misleading signals.
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 distinct primary purpose, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, creating slight overlap. The rest are clearly separated by function.
Naming is highly inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), snake_case compounds (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese-language tool (cadin_sp_consultar) are mixed without any unifying pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the server is named after a specific domain (CADIN São Paulo) while containing only one domain-specific tool and six generic platform tools, making the overall scope feel unfocused and bloated relative to the name.
The CADIN-specific surface is severely limited to a single consultation tool, with no additional operations like status checking or history. The platform management side is fairly complete, but the stated domain lacks meaningful coverage.