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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned, which helps set expectations. It doesn't add extra behavioral details like latency or side effects, but for a simple read-only state tool this is adequate.
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 is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') followed by a compact list of included details. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description fully explains what the return value contains: installed MCPs, their connection status, accounts per MCP, and catalog tool counts. For a zero-parameter state tool, this is complete and sufficient.
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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the return value rather than parameters, and there are no param semantics to explain.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'connect' 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 provides clear context that this tool is for obtaining the overall toolkit state, which implicitly tells an agent when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools such as 'show_version' for more specific version information, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct: compliance_apostas_consultar is the only domain-specific operation, while the rest serve platform management (auth, connectivity, marketplace, feedback, version, toolkit state). However, `connect`, `marketplace`, and `toolkit_info` overlap in providing status and access information, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong one for simple state checks.
Naming is inconsistent: `authenticate`, `connect`, `report_bug`, and `show_version` are imperative verbs, while `marketplace` and `toolkit_info` are nouns, and `compliance_apostas_consultar` mixes Portuguese with a verb-at-end structure. There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, and the mix of languages and formats reduces predictability.
Seven tools is within the typical 3–15 range, but the server's stated purpose ('Compliance de Apostas') suggests a domain-specific toolset, yet only one tool actually serves that domain. The rest are generic MCP platform utilities, making the count feel padded or misaligned with the server's name.
For a betting compliance server, the surface is severely incomplete: only a single CPF query tool exists, with no support for batch checks, reports, or other compliance workflows. If the server is intended as a platform management toolkit, it is more complete, but the name and primary domain tool suggest a different focus.