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 covered. The description adds useful context about what information is returned (MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), but does not disclose details like whether the state is live or cached. This is acceptable but not exceptional.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence conveys the full purpose and enumerates the key result components. There is no wasted wording or redundancy with the annotations.
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 parameterless read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: what is returned, the scope (toolkit state), and the specific categories of data. An agent can decide to call it correctly without additional context.
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, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this receives a 4; 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 identifies the exact resource ('current toolkit state') with concrete details: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling calculator and authentication tools.
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 use when an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's current state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Since there are no similar sibling tools, the usage context is reasonably clear without being fully 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.
The 16 calculation tools are each tied to a distinct legal scenario (rent, criminal sentencing, FGTS, labor severance, etc.), so misselection is unlikely. However, the platform meta-tools overlap: connect, toolkit_info, and authenticate all deal with connection/auth state, and marketplace's list_tools/describe overlaps with toolkit_info.
The legal calculators use a consistent calculo_<domain> prefix, which is highly predictable. But the six meta-tools use standalone English names (connect, marketplace, report_bug) and the prefix itself mixes nouns (calculo_aluguel) with a verb (calculo_atualizar), so the overall convention is not uniform.
22 tools is on the heavy side for a server claiming to be about 'juros e multa', especially since six tools are unrelated platform administration features. The 16 legal calculators are arguably well-scoped, but the meta-tool wrapper inflates the count and blurs the server's purpose.
The legal calculation surface is unusually broad: civil, criminal, labor, social security, banking, and family law are all represented, and the calculo_atualizar tool provides the generic debt-update/interest/fee calculation implied by the server name. Minor gaps exist—there is no dedicated simple-interest-only calculator or court-fees/custas calculator—but no obvious dead-end workflows remain.