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, establishing a safe read-only operation. The description adds context about what the response includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the annotations' coverage.
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 entire description is one well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then specifies exactly what is included. There is no wasted wording.
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 0-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what to expect from the return value, which is the main requirement for this simple tool.
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 input schema provides no semantic information. The description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation; the baseline of 4 applies due to the absence of parameters.
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') with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or show_version, which handle different concerns.
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 checking toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are semantically different, so the context is clear, but the description lacks direct guidance on usage scenarios.
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 tool set mixes one domain-specific tool (ceaf_consultar) with several generic MCP platform utilities. There is some overlap between connect and toolkit_info (both report connection status), and marketplace bundles many capabilities, but the detailed descriptions mostly help disambiguate. Still, the distinct purposes are not as clear as they could be.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), some are nouns (marketplace), and two use snake_case (ceaf_consultar, toolkit_info). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, mixing styles across the set.
Seven tools is within the typical range, but the server's name suggests a single-purpose CEAF service. The inclusion of six generic platform tools feels bloated for that specific purpose, though it would be reasonable for a general MCP management server.
For a CEAF consultation service, only ceaf_consultar provides domain functionality; there are no batch lookups, detailed record views, or history features. The remaining tools are unrelated meta-tools, making the surface severely incomplete for the server's apparent domain focus.