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?
The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the exact return payload: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so this additional content context adds meaningful transparency without redundancy.
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 entire description is one well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and immediately provides the key details. There is no filler or repetition.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is fully self-sufficient. It enumerates all the output categories, making the tool's behavior completely understandable without additional context.
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, which earns a baseline of 4. The description is not required to compensate for missing parameter information, and it does not attempt to, which is appropriate.
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 precisely states what the tool does: 'Returns the current toolkit state' with enumerated content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It clearly distinguishes this info/status tool from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug, which are action-oriented.
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 implies use for inspecting toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Given siblings like show_version may overlap, explicit guidance would improve clarity, but the purpose is clear enough to infer typical usage.
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 roles: authenticate handles login, marketplace handles discovery/execution, report_bug handles feedback, etc. However, connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, which could cause some confusion.
Naming convention is highly inconsistent. The domain tool uses Portuguese snake_case (cnh_situacao_consultar), while others use English verbs (authenticate, connect) or nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). No consistent verb_noun pattern exists.
With 7 tools, only one is domain-specific (cnh_situacao_consultar); the other six are generic platform utilities. The count feels bloated for the stated CNH purpose and under-invests in the actual domain functionality.
The CNH domain is covered only by a single consultation tool, with no additional operations or complementary features. The platform tools are unrelated to CNH, leaving the domain surface severely thin for a server named 'Situação da CNH'.