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, which covers safety and side-effect concerns. The description adds context about the returned state (which MCPs are installed, connection status), but does not disclose additional operational behaviors like authentication requirements or error conditions.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that lists the output contents concisely. Every word adds information; no 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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns by listing the key components. It could have specified the response format more precisely, but for a simple info tool it is 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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to document. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description correctly implies the tool needs no configuration.
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 the tool returns the current toolkit state and enumerates the specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'show_version' which focuses on version, and 'authenticate' which handles auth.
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 tool is used to inspect overall toolkit state, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It offers clear context of what the tool does, but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.
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 distinct purposes, but marketplace is a broad meta-tool that overlaps with connect and toolkit_info for managing connections and installations, and authenticate/connect are closely related.
Names mix conventions: verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), noun_only (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese snake_case phrase (credito_dossie_consultar). No consistent pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but only one tool directly serves the credit dossier purpose; the other six are generic platform utilities that seem out of scope for a specialized server.
The credit domain is covered by only a single query operation with no supporting operations (e.g., history, batch, management). The rest of the tools are unrelated, leaving the core domain underdeveloped.