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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context by detailing the exact information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, counts), going beyond what the annotations state.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and enumerates all key aspects without waste. Every word earns its place.
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 information tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It fully specifies what the tool returns and gives enough context for an agent to decide to invoke it.
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, and the schema is empty. Per the scoring guide, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description could have mentioned the absence of parameters but is not required to.
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 states the tool's function: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or marketplace.
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 implicitly communicates when to use the tool (whenever you need current toolkit state), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. Unlike strong examples that name sibling tools, this description leaves the agent to infer usage context.
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 roles: authenticate handles login, connect shows status, cnia_improbidade_consultar does the actual CNIA lookup, and the rest are meta/utility tools. The only mild overlap is between authenticate and connect, but their descriptions differentiate them adequately.
Naming is inconsistent across languages and styles: English verbs (authenticate, connect), Portuguese verb_noun (cnia_improbidade_consultar), and noun-based names (marketplace, toolkit_info). The mix of snake_case and lowercase without a clear convention makes the set feel ad hoc.
At 7 tools, the count is reasonable, but the set is heavily skewed toward platform/meta tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) with only one domain-specific CNIA tool. This feels over-inflated for a dedicated CNIA server, yet the total number is not excessive.
The core domain operation of querying CNIA by CPF/CNPJ is covered, and no additional CNIA-specific actions are obviously needed for a simple lookup. However, the server's broader scope as a marketplace and toolkit means the CNIA surface is minimal, and there are no bulk or advanced query options.