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 and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what the return value will contain (state details), which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict 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 purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific data categories. It is concise with no wasted words.
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 no-parameter, read-only query tool, the description fully explains what the user can expect from the output (state components). With no output schema, it adequately covers the needed information. It doesn't address error cases, but those are minor for a state query. Given the simplicity, it's complete.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters and adds nothing beyond what's absent.
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 returns 'current toolkit state' and enumerates specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are actions rather than state inquiries.
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 usage for checking state but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Given the sibling tools, it's obvious it's for informational purposes, but the description doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to call it or when not to.
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 'marketplace' tool is a sprawling multi-purpose tool covering search, install, subscribe, and more, overlapping with 'authenticate', 'connect', 'toolkit_info', and even 'report_bug'. Tools like 'carf_processo_consultar' have a distinct purpose, but several others (connect, toolkit_info, marketplace) blur boundaries around status/management.
Naming is inconsistent: 'carf_processo_consultar' is a verb_noun in Portuguese, while others are plain English verbs like 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug'. There is no clear pattern; some are functions, some are nouns, and one mixes domain-specific naming.
The tool count is 7, which is within the recommended rangecase; however, the 'marketplace' tool is overloaded and should likely be split, making the count feel artificial. Still, 7 tools is reasonable for the server's advertised breadth.
For a server named 'CARF: Processo' centered on consulting Brazilian official sources, we only see one domain operation ('carf_processo_consultar'). The rest are platform management utilities unrelated to CARF. There are no obvious lifecycle operations (e.g., list, export, status) for the core domain, making the surface severely incomplete.