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 provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe-read behavior is known. The description adds context by enumerating the exact items returned, which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. It does not contradict annotations, nor does it discuss side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only tool.
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 sentence that front-loads the return action and lists the key categories of information. No wasted words.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return content for an agent to anticipate the response structure. It covers all relevant aspects for a zero-parameter read-only info tool.
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, so schema coverage is complete (100%). The description does not need to add parameter semantics; it simply clarifies that the tool takes no input, which aligns with the empty schema.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly defines the resource as 'current toolkit state,' listing the exact components (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like `show_version` and `connect`, which focus on different aspects.
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 communicates the tool's purpose as a state inspector, so an agent can infer when to use it (e.g., checking connectivity before operations). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a fully explicit guideline.
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 distinct in purpose, but there is some overlap between authenticate, connect, and marketplace—especially since marketplace's invoke can return connection links. The single domain-specific tool (cnpj_cadastral_plus_consultar) is clearly separate from the platform utilities.
Naming is inconsistent: it mixes English and Portuguese, verb-only (authenticate, connect), noun-only (marketplace), and snake_case verb_noun (report_bug, show_version) with no coherent pattern. The Portuguese tool name cnpj_cadastral_plus_consultar follows a different convention entirely.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable, but only one actually relates to the server's apparent domain (CNPJ data). The remaining six are generic platform utilities (marketplace, connect, toolkit_info, etc.) that don't belong in a specialized server and dilute its focus.
The CNPJ domain is severely underrepresented: there is only a single query tool and no other operations such as validation, list, or update. The generic platform tools do not fill these gaps, making the set incomplete for its stated purpose.