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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds value by detailing exactly what state will be returned, which helps the agent understand the scope without repeating annotation data.
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 action and lists the key components. Every word earns its place with no redundant or vague phrasing.
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 parameterless, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys what the agent needs to know: it returns the toolkit state with the specified details. Annotations cover safety, so no further disclosure is needed.
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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
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: toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog counts. This clearly separates it from action-oriented siblings like connect and authenticate.
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 makes the use case evident—use this to inspect toolkit state—and implies it is the go-to for status queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (auth, query, status, feedback, version, toolkit state). However, marketplace is a mega-tool that includes report_bug functionality, creating some overlap with the dedicated report_bug tool, and connect/toolkit_info both relate to connection status.
Naming is inconsistent: camelCase (connect, report_bug), snake_case (cgu_consultar), and mixed patterns overall. Also, cgu_consultar is Portuguese while other tool names are English, breaking a predictable convention.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the marketplace tool is overloaded with many sub-actions (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, etc.), making it feel like a large number of hidden tools bundled into one.
The server's primary domain is CGU data consultation, but only one tool (cgu_consultar) addresses that domain. The rest are platform utilities (auth, marketplace, version, etc.), leaving obvious gaps such as different consultation types, data explanations, or batch operations.