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 valuable context about the exact information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond what the annotations state without contradicting them.
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 action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists specific data points. Every clause adds useful information, with no redundancy or filler.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It clearly explains the purpose and the return content, leaving no ambiguous gaps for an agent to misinterpret.
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, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe, but this is appropriate and not a gap.
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 defines the resource as 'current toolkit state', elaborating on exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version by focusing on toolkit-wide state rather than individual 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: anytime an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's installed MCPs, connections, and accounts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer its purpose.
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 roles: authenticate handles login, connect reports connection status, cpf_receita_consultar does the actual CPF lookup. However, connect and toolkit_info both touch connection status, and authenticate/connect have some overlap, which could cause minor confusion.
Naming is inconsistent: English and Portuguese are mixed (cpf_receita_consultar vs. report_bug), some names are verbs (authenticate, connect) while others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses snake_case while others don't follow a clear pattern.
At 7 tools, the count is reasonable and within the typical well-scoped range. However, the server is named for CPF/Receita Federal but has only one domain-specific tool, with the rest being generic platform utilities, making the set feel slightly imbalanced for its stated purpose.
The CPF consultation tool provides basic lookup capability, but the domain surface is thin—there's no validation, batch, or historical querying. The marketplace tool mitigates this by allowing access to other MCPs, but for a server dedicated to CPF/Receita, the coverage is incomplete.