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 establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond listing return content, which is not behavioral. It doesn't mention performance, authentication, or side effects, but also doesn't contradict annotations.
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 efficiently lists the key elements of the return value without any filler. Every phrase adds meaningful information about what the tool returns.
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?
Given it's a parameterless read-only tool with good annotations and a clear sibling set, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to decide to invoke it. It names the main output categories, which is sufficient for a tool of this simplicity.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter-level detail. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description focuses on the return value instead, which is appropriate.
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' with a clear resource: 'current toolkit state'. It enumerates exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making it easy to distinguish from siblings 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 provides clear context on what the tool does, implying it should be used when you need an overview of the toolkit's MCP connections and capabilities. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that the intended usage is evident.
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 purposes (authenticate, query registration, report bugs, show version), but connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace overlap somewhat in connection status and toolkit state. Detailed descriptions help disambiguate, but a few boundaries are blurry.
Tool names mix verb-first patterns (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with noun-first (marketplace, toolkit_info) and a Portuguese-style compound (confea_crea_consultar). There is no consistent naming convention, making the set feel haphazard.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range. However, the server's stated domain (CONFEA/CREA) is represented by only one tool, while the other six are generic platform utilities, making the count feel unbalanced for the stated purpose.
For an engineering registration domain, the server offers only a single lookup tool (confea_crea_consultar), with no additional operations like listing, updating, or verification. The remaining tools are unrelated to the domain, leaving the domain-specific surface severely limited.