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, destructiveHint=false, covering safety expectations. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing exactly what the tool reports (connected accounts, number of catalog tools per MCP), which is not present in the structured fields. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful operational insight about the tool's output.
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, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the verb 'Returns' followed by a clear list of what is returned. Every word earns its place, no filler 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?
There is no output schema, so the description must cover what the tool returns, which it does explicitly: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. For a diagnostic tool with no parameters and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent), this is complete enough. It doesn't over-specify structure, but the returned fields are sufficiently identified.
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?
There are zero parameters erk going on, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description correctly lists the returned fields, which indirectly indicates what parameters are not needed. No additional parameter explanation is required.
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 what the tool does: returns the toolkit state including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and defines precise resource scope (current toolkit state), distinguishing it from sibling tools like show_version which focus on version. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose.
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 the usage context: when you need to inspect the toolkit's current configuration and connections. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but it's clear that this is the diagnostic/status tool. A slight improvement would be mentioning when to use it over similar tools like 'show_version', but the context is sufficiently clear without exclusions.
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 one domain tool, comprot_processo_consultar, is clearly distinct, but authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info overlap around connection/auth status. The marketplace tool also absorbs behaviors (report_bug, list_tools, install) that partially duplicate standalone tools, creating boundary confusion despite detailed descriptions.
Tool names mix styles: English verbs (authenticate, connect), noun-only names (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb-noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), and one Portuguese snake_case domain tool (comprot_processo_consultar). There is no uniform convention, making the set feel inconsistent.
Seven tools is not excessive, but the set bundles a single actual domain/query tool with a generic MCP platform shell dominated by marketplace and connection utilities. The count is workable, yet the packaging feels unfocused for a server named 'Comprot: Processo'.
The platform side is reasonably covered: authentication, connection status, marketplace-based install/invoke, version, bug reporting, and toolkit state are all present. However, the Processo domain itself is reduced to one generic consult tool, with no explicit support for related case actions or follow-ups.