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=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating exactly what information is returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts.
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 that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the returned information in a clear list. Every word earns its place.
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, idempotent introspection tool, the description is fully adequate. It states the return contents, annotations cover safety, and no output schema is required.
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 correctly focuses on the output content rather than parameters, and no parameter documentation is needed.
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') with concrete details about what that state includes. This differentiates it from sibling tools by being introspection-focused rather than computation- or auth-related.
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 the tool is for inspecting toolkit state, which is enough to infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative sibling tool for related needs, leaving some routing to the agent.
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 calculo_* tools are mostly distinct by legal domain, but calculo_atualizar is a generic monetary-correction tool that overlaps with correction logic built into calculo_pensao, calculo_aluguel, and calculo_fgts. The platform tools like connect and toolkit_info are distinct but sit awkwardly alongside the calculators.
The legal calculators consistently use a calculo_ prefix in snake_case, but suffixes mix verbs, nouns, adjectives, and acronyms. The six meta tools break the pattern entirely with bare names like connect, marketplace, and report_bug.
22 tools is already on the heavy side, but the scope mismatch is severe: a server named 'Cálculo de Pensão Alimentícia' exposes 16 calculators for unrelated legal areas plus 6 platform administration tools. Only calculo_pensao directly matches the server name, making the count feel inflated and unfocused.
For the stated child-support purpose, the surface is incomplete: calculo_pensao covers only arrears and lacks clear support for prospective alimony calculation, modification/review, or enforcement scenarios. If viewed as a general legal calculator suite, it is broad but still has notable gaps, and the narrow server name makes those gaps more glaring.