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, so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds meaningful context about the return value's content, which aligns with the annotations and discloses the tool's informational nature beyond what annotations provide.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently enumerates four distinct data points without filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 no-parameter info tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and return content. It could optionally mention output format, but the enumerated components are sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive.
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 input schema has zero parameters, making schema description coverage trivially 100%. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document, and the description correctly adds no redundant parameter information.
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 identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect.
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 by stating what the tool returns, which implies when to use it (whenever an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's connections and capabilities). It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but for a standalone info tool, this is sufficient guidance.
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, but 'authenticate' and 'connect' both relate to authentication/connection status, and 'marketplace' is a sprawling meta-tool that overlaps with many capabilities. The domain-specific 'cnd_municipal_consultar' stands apart from the generic platform tools, reducing confusion among the former but making the set feel disjointed.
Names mix single-word verbs (connect, marketplace), compound verbs (report_bug, show_version), and an inconsistent noun phrase (toolkit_info). The Portuguese 'cnd_municipal_consultar' contrasts sharply with English tool names, and there is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
While 7 tools is a reasonable number, the server is named 'CND Municipal' yet contains only one domain-specific tool; the other six are generic MCP platform utilities. This is a poor match between the server's apparent purpose and its actual tool composition.
For a CND Municipal service, the surface is extremely thin: only one query tool for the actual domain. There are no management operations for CND records, credit balance, or history. The platform tools (marketplace, connect, etc.) do not address domain completeness, leaving significant gaps for any real CND workflow.