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, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying what exactly the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is behavioral detail beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction 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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists the returned data components. No redundant words or filler; every part of the sentence carries meaning.
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?
The description is sufficiently complete for a simple, parameterless, read-only status tool. It enumerates the key return items, but does not specify the output format or mention potential error conditions. However, given the tool's simplicity and the existing annotations, this is adequate.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing to describe. Per the rubric, a parameterless tool receives a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.
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 resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version, which likely only returns version info.
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 indicates the tool is used to retrieve an overall status snapshot. Although it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the nature of the tool (a read-only state query) makes its usage context obvious relative to the sibling tools. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the context is unambiguous.
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 distinct function: authentication, CARF lookup, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version, and toolkit info. There is slight overlap between connect and toolkit_info regarding status, but descriptions clarify their different outputs.
Naming is inconsistent: verbs like authenticate, connect, and report_bug; nouns like marketplace and toolkit_info; and a mixed carf_consultar with Portuguese. No consistent pattern across tools.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a server that handles both CARF queries and platform administration. The scope is broad but each tool serves a distinct purpose, and the count is not excessive.
The CARF consultation tool covers the core function of checking processes by CPF/CNPJ. The platform tools cover authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery and invocation, version, bug reporting, and toolkit state, which appears sufficient for managing MCP integration. No critical gaps are evident.