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, which cover the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing the contents of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and then provides a clear, structured enumeration of the return contents. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
As a simple read-only info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool returns and the components of that state. It is complete for this complexity level.
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 the schema property list is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description is not required to add parameter info, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 exactly what that includes: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect, authenticate, and report_bug, which are action-oriented.
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 provides clear context on what the tool does and implies when to use it (whenever toolkit state info is needed), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools like connect and authenticate are obviously different, but no explicit exclusion is given.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authenticate for token login, cepim_consultar for CNPJ checks, connect for status, marketplace for discovery/running, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info. There is no functional overlap between tools.
Naming is inconsistent: verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), and noun_noun (toolkit_info). The only domain tool, cepim_consultar, reverses the verb_noun pattern, breaking any coherent naming scheme.
Seven tools is moderate, but the server is named 'CEPIM' and only one tool relates to that domain. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the set feel padded and poorly scoped to the intended purpose.
For the CEPIM domain, only a single query operation exists with no additional workflows (e.g., bulk verification, historical checks). While the platform side is thorough, the CEPIM-specific surface is shallow and incomplete for a dedicated service.