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 this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying exactly what aspects of state are returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not add any caveats about errors or volatility, but given the strong annotation coverage, this is sufficient.
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 ('Returns') and then provides a clear, comma-separated list of the returned contents. Every word earns its place; no filler 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully captures what an agent needs: what the tool does and what the return value contains. The listed items (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) give a complete picture of the toolkit state without requiring an output schema.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain in the description. The schema fully covers the (empty) parameter set, and the description provides no additional parameter semantics needed. Baseline for zero params is 4.
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 identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', then enumerates the key pieces of information (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version, 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?
The description provides a clear context for when to use the tool (whenever you need to inspect toolkit state). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer its appropriate use.
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 clear distinct purposes: cnd_federal_consultar is the only domain-specific tool, while others handle authentication, connection status, marketplace, feedback, version, and toolkit overview. The main overlap is between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info', which both report connection status, but they serve slightly different scopes (provider connections vs. overall toolkit state).
Naming is inconsistent: most tools are lowercase snake_case (e.g., report_bug, show_version), but some are single words (authenticate, connect, marketplace). The domain tool 'cnd_federal_consultar' is in Portuguese while everything else is English, breaking consistency. The mix of verbs and nouns further weakens any predictable pattern.
Seven tools is within the ideal range, but the server is named 'CND Federal' yet contains only one tool related to that domain; the other six are general platform management tools (marketplace, toolkit_info, etc.). This makes the set feel over-scoped for the apparent purpose, though the total count is acceptable.
For the CND lookup function, the single tool covers the core need (query by CPF/CNPJ), but there are no additional operations like validation, history, or credit checks. The broader platform tools provide substantial coverage for the marketplace, but they are unrelated to the CND domain, leaving the CND surface minimal and potentially incomplete for a dedicated CND service.