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, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the return content; it doesn't mention latency, permissions, or side effects. Thus it doesn't go beyond annotations, but also doesn't contradict them.
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?
One informative sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, with no filler. It efficiently enumerates the return fields without over-specifying.
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 simple read-only info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what data will be returned and the tool's scope, so there's no critical missing information.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and there's nothing for the description to explain. Per baseline, it receives a 4 for not needing to compensate.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as the 'current toolkit state', enumerating the exact information provided (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or connect.
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?
While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the description provides clear context that this tool is for inspecting the toolkit's state. The enumerated return fields make its use case obvious, and the sibling tools are action-oriented, so an agent can reasonably infer when to call this. No exclusions are stated, so it falls short of an explicit 5.
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 serves a distinct function: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state, and the CEIS lookup. There is minimal overlap, and descriptions are clear enough to prevent misselection.
Tool names follow inconsistent patterns: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a Portuguese noun-verb combination (ceis_consultar). This mixed convention and language creates a lack of predictable naming.
The count of 7 tools is within the typical range, but the server is named after a specific domain (CEIS) and only one tool relates to it. The other six are generic platform tools, making the scope feel unfocused and the count somewhat inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
For the CEIS domain, a single lookup tool covers the likely need (query registrant status). However, the server also includes unrelated platform management tools, and there are no other CEIS-related operations (e.g., history, details, bulk checks), so the surface is thin and not fully developed for the stated domain.