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, covering safety. The description adds valuable context about the exact return contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the structured 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 purpose and lists the key outputs. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.
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 no-parameter read-only tool, the description fully explains what the tool returns. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit list of content (MCPs, status, accounts, count of catalog tools), making it 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?
The tool has 0 parameters, so per rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since the input schema is empty and there are no parameters to document.
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') and clearly specifies the resource ('current toolkit state') and its contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like show_version or connect, which serve different purposes.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. However, the purpose is self-evident as a general status/read tool, so usage is implied rather than stated. Without exclusions or alternatives, it falls at the implied usage level.
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 clear, distinct purpose, and the descriptions prevent direct overlap. The only slight ambiguity is between authenticate and connect, but both are adequately differentiated. However, the mix of generic platform tools with a single domain tool may confuse an agent about which to use for certificate tasks.
Tool names are highly inconsistent: some are verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), one is a long Portuguese snake_case (certidao_debitos_pf_consultar), and others mix verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version). The language mixing and lack of a uniform convention make the naming chaotic.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the server's name suggests a focused domain service, and only one tool actually serves that domain. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the count feel bloated for the apparent purpose and creating a scope mismatch.
For the stated domain of certidão de débitos, only a single consult operation is provided, with no supporting tools for history, downloads, or related management. The platform utilities do not address domain-specific gaps, leaving the coverage severely incomplete for the server's implied purpose.