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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by detailing exactly what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is not derived from the annotations alone.
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 states the verb and object first, then lists the key contents in a compact, readable manner. Every word earns its place with no filler.
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 thoroughly covers what the agent can expect to learn from calling it. It enumerates the main aspects of the toolkit state, making it complete for its intended purpose.
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 an empty schema, so the description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameter details. With no parameters to document, the baseline score of 4 applies.
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 resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or authenticate.
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 clearly implies this tool is for getting a snapshot of the toolkit's installed components and their statuses. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a read-only status tool the context is unambiguous.
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 are clearly distinct, but connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace overlap on connection/status and installed MCP information. The sole domain-specific tool (cnpj_cadastral_consultar) is unambiguous.
Names mix English and Portuguese, verbs and nouns, and underscore styles (e.g., authenticate vs report_bug vs cnpj_cadastral_consultar). No consistent pattern is followed.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but six are platform-management utilities unrelated to the 'Cadastro PJ Básico' domain. The only domain-specific tool is a single query, making the set feel padded.
For its stated purpose, the CNPJ basic registration lookup is covered by one tool, but there are no additional operations like validation or search. The platform tools are extensive but unrelated to the domain label.