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 mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing exactly what state is reported (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotation hints without contradicting 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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action (returns toolkit state) and immediately specifies the meaningful components. Every word contributes value.
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 the purpose and return content. It is complete in context, especially with sibling tools like authenticate and connect clarifying its observational role.
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 no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description has no parameter burden and correctly focuses on return content instead.
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 clearly identifies the tool as returning toolkit state, listing specific content (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions like authentication or connection.
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 information is returned, implying usage when an overview of toolkit state is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names make the differentiation obvious.
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.
The domain tool 'cnd_imovel_rural_consultar' is clearly distinct, but the platform tools overlap: 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection status, and 'marketplace' is a catch-all for searching, invoking, and managing MCPs. Descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries between these utility tools are not always sharp.
Tool names mix styles: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), and a long Portuguese snake_case name (cnd_imovel_rural_consultar). There is no consistent pattern, and the language mix (English vs Portuguese) adds to the inconsistency.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but only one tool serves the server's stated domain ('CND Imóvel Rural'). The other six are generic platform utilities, making the set feel bloated with meta-tools rather than focused on the certificate service.
For the domain of issuing a negative certificate for a rural property, the single 'cnd_imovel_rural_consultar' tool covers the core operation. There are no obvious missing domain operations (e.g., no need for update or delete). However, the platform tools are unrelated to the domain, which slightly detracts from the overall completeness.