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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about what exactly is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotation tags. No contradictions found.
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') and concisely lists the key pieces of information. Every word earns its place with 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?
For a simple read-only info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the key return items. It gives enough detail for an agent to know what to expect without needing a formal schema.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, but it effectively describes the output content, which is the main information a user needs.
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 that the tool returns the current toolkit state and enumerates specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or connect.
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 a use case: check the current state of the toolkit. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or mention alternatives/exclusions. Thus usage guidance is only implicit, not explicit.
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's ability to find MCPs for CPF queries overlaps with credito_negativo_consultar, and authenticate/connect both deal with authentication states, requiring careful reading of descriptions to avoid misselection.
Tool names mix English verbs, nouns, and a Portuguese compound phrase, with inconsistent patterns like bare verbs (authenticate, connect), noun-only (marketplace), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version) alongside noun-based names (toolkit_info). This lacks a coherent convention.
7 tools is within a reasonable range, but the marketplace tool is a mega-tool covering many sub-actions (search, invoke, install, etc.) that could be split for clarity. Still, the count itself is not excessive.
The server's stated purpose (negative credit detail) is covered by only one tool (credito_negativo_consultar), while the remaining tools are generic platform utilities. Missing domain-specific operations such as report history, dispute handling, or credit limit management leave significant gaps.