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 and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about what the returned state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), enriching behavioral understanding beyond the schema.
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 sentence that front-loads the key verb ('Returns') and efficiently lists the returned content without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.
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 zero-parameter state inspection tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it tells the agent exactly what information will be returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). No critical context is missing.
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 for this dimension is 4. The description properly omits parameter details since there are none to document, and the schema confirms no inputs are needed.
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 a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource: 'current toolkit state'. It enumerates concrete details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count) that distinguish it from siblings like show_version or authenticate.
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 makes the usage context clear: call this to inspect toolkit state. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but given zero parameters and its informational nature, the intended usage is obvious. It stands apart from connection/auth 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: authentication, connectivity status, credit consultation, MCP catalog, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. Even though authenticate and connect both deal with access, their functions are separate and unambiguous.
Tool names are inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), and underscore-separated compounds with varying patterns (credito_pf_consultar, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). There is no uniform verb_noun or noun_verb convention.
While seven tools is not excessive, the count is inappropriate for the server's stated purpose of credit analysis. Six of the seven tools are generic platform utilities (auth, connect, marketplace, bug reporting, version, toolkit state) that dilute the domain-specific focus. Only one tool actually performs credit analysis.
The core credit consultation operation is covered by credito_pf_consultar, but there are no additional credit-domain operations. The rest of the tools are platform-level, not domain-specific. The surface feels thin for a server named 'Análise de Crédito PF', leaving no further credit-related capabilities.