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, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the specific data returned (installed MCPs, connection statuses, accounts, tool counts), which helps the agent understand what to expect. No side effects are relevant for a read-only 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the key components in a clear, efficient sequence. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema info tool, the description fully explains what the tool returns, covering all the key aspects of toolkit state. Annotations provide the safety context. It is complete for the scope and complexity of this 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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description need not explain any parameters. This falls under the 0-params baseline of 4, and the description adds no parameter-related info, which is appropriate.
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 as 'current toolkit state,' enumerating the components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate and connect, which are action-oriented.
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 usage by detailing the exact information returned, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of 'use this when you need X' or 'instead of show_version,' so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. The domain-specific CAF tool stands apart. However, 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection status, which could cause minor confusion.
Naming is mixed: platform tools use single words or compound phrases like 'authenticate', 'report_bug', 'show_version', while the domain tool uses a prefixed snake_case pattern 'caf_agricultura_pf_consultar'. 'marketplace' and 'toolkit_info' are nouns rather than verbs, breaking the verb-based pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, neither overwhelming nor too sparse. The platform tools are necessary for the MCP ecosystem integration, and the one domain tool addresses the core consultation need. Still, the server is heavily weighted toward platform utilities rather than CAF-specific functionality.
The CAF domain is covered only with a single consultation tool, which may be sufficient for a simple lookup service but lacks any additional operations like batch queries or result validation. The platform tools are complete for their purposes, so the overall set is functional but has minimal domain depth.