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 disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, setting a low bar. The description adds useful context about the exact contents of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts) beyond the annotations. It does not mention output format or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool this is acceptable.
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 purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') followed by a clear, colon-separated enumeration of the returned contents. Every word earns its place with no 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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It fully specifies what the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which is sufficient for a simple information-retrieval 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, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately says nothing about parameters because none exist, and the schema's 100% coverage confirms this.
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 names a clear resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what that state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like show_version or authenticate.
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 clearly conveys what the tool offers (a snapshot of the toolkit's MCPs, connections, and accounts), giving the agent strong context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, connect shows connection status, marketplace handles discovery and invocation, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays versions, toolkit_info shows installed MCPs. The single domain tool caf_agricultura_pj_consultar is clearly separate. Minor overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info (both touch connection status), but descriptions clarify their roles.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are bare verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace), some are snake_case verb_noun (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and one is a long Portuguese domain-specific name (caf_agricultura_pj_consultar). There is no unified pattern or verb style across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a general platform toolkit. However, the server name suggests a CAF-specific domain, yet only one tool is actually CAF-related; the rest are generic platform utilities. The count itself is fine, but the scope is slightly mismatched with the server's title.
The platform tooling is fairly complete: authentication, connection status, marketplace search/run, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state cover common needs. The CAF domain has a single query tool, which may be sufficient for a simple lookup, but lacks any additional operations like batch queries or listing categories. Minor gaps, but no critical dead ends.