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 established. The description adds meaningful context about exactly what state is inspected and returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond relying solely on 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates specifics with a colon and list. Every word adds value 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?
For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is complete for the agent to use the tool correctly.
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. Schema description coverage is trivially 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description's focus on the return value 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 ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact information provided: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (which likely shows version only) and authenticate/connect (which handle auth).
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 implies when to use the tool: to get an overview of the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs and their health. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over sibling tools.
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 tools are individually distinct, but the set mixes a single CAFIR-specific query with generic platform utilities (marketplace, connect, authenticate), making it unclear what the server is for. An agent might confuse connect with toolkit_info, and marketplace is an overloaded catch-all.
Names are inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace), underscore-separated verb_noun (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and a long domain-specific name (cafir_imoveis_rurais_consultar) follow no common pattern.
While 7 tools is a reasonable number in general, only one tool actually addresses the CAFIR domain; the rest are platform housekeeping tools that feel out of place in a server named 'CAFIR', so the count is inflated for its apparent scope.
For a CAFIR-specific server, the only domain operation is a single query by CIB. There is no listing, search, or other rural-property functionality, leaving the core domain severely under-covered. The platform tools are complete, but they are not the intended focus.