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, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying exactly what state data is returned (MCPs, connection statuses, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's output behavior.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the return components without any fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.
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 parameterless, read-only state inspector, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and return payload. Since there is no output schema, enumerating the returned fields (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) provides complete contextual information.
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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Applying the baseline of 4 for descriptions with no parameters is appropriate; the description correctly omits any parameter-related explanation.
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 the resource 'current toolkit state' and enumerates the exact content: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling action tools like authenticate or connect, which perform different operations.
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 the tool is for inspecting toolkit state, providing context for when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar information, so it stops short of full usage guidance.
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.
Some tools overlap in purpose, particularly connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, while authenticate handles login. The marketplace tool is a large catch-all that could be confused with platform management, but its detailed description helps distinguish it.
Tool names are inconsistent: some use verb-only (authenticate, connect), some use verb_noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a Portuguese descriptive phrase (cpf_cadastral_plus_consultar). The mix of languages and conventions makes the set feel chaotic.
With 7 tools, the count is within the typical well-scoped range. However, only one tool actually relates to the server's stated CPF consultation purpose, while the rest are generic platform utilities, making the set feel slightly over-inclusive.
The core CPF consultation workflow is covered (authenticate, connect, consult), but there are no other CPF-specific operations such as batch consultation, validation, or historical queries. The inclusion of many platform-management tools doesn't fill these domain gaps.