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 | |||
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 context beyond these annotations by specifying the exact content of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection statuses, accounts, tool counts), which helps the agent understand what to expect. No contradictions with 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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and packs all relevant information without wasted words. It is exemplary in conciseness and clarity.
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's low complexity, the lack of parameters, and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It lists the key categories of information included in the toolkit state, making it complete for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.
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 an empty input schema, so there are no parameter details to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly indicates there is nothing to parameterize, and it adds no extraneous semantics.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and details the exact resource (current toolkit state) and its components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like show_version, which would focus only on version information.
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 makes the context of use clear (when you need an overview of the toolkit's state), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives. The usage is implied rather than directly stated, so guidance is adequate but not thorough.
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.
Each tool has a clear primary purpose: authentication, data consultation, connection status, marketplace discovery, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. The only slight overlap is between connect (connection status) and toolkit_info (connection status plus installed MCPs), which could cause minor misselection but is mitigated by detailed descriptions.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use a verb (authenticate, connect), some use noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool car_download_shapefile_consultar mixes a long domain prefix with an action suffix. There is no uniform convention, making it harder to predict tool names.
Seven tools exist, but only one (car_download_shapefile_consultar) actually serves the server's stated purpose of downloading CAR shapefiles. The remaining six are generic platform utilities, leaving the domain-specific functionality extremely thin for the apparent scope.
The single domain tool appears to handle the core query/download operation, but there are no supporting tools for listing available datasets, filtering by region, or validating inputs, which would be expected for a shapefile download service. Agents will likely need to rely on the marketplace tool to fill gaps, indicating an incomplete surface.