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, and the description aligns with that by describing a read-only operation. It adds valuable detail about the kinds of information returned, which helps the agent anticipate the output. No contradiction with annotations.
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, well-structured sentence conveys all necessary information with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and lists concrete deliverables, making it easy to parse.
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, read-only informational tool, the description fully covers what the tool returns. The annotations handle the safety profile, and the lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of return contents. No gaps remain.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies. It adds no parameter info, but none is 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version', which is narrower in scope.
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 when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs an overview of the toolkit state. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use show_version for version only'), so it stops short of a 5.
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.
The credit consultation tool is distinct, but the presence of generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) alongside it creates context confusion. Authenticate and connect have related purposes, and marketplace is a broad meta-tool that overlaps with the server's overall capability.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: most are simple English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug) or nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), but the core domain tool is a long Portuguese-style 'credito_pj_limite_consultar' with a reversed order. Mixing languages and conventions makes naming unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server's stated purpose is 'Limite de Crédito PJ' and only one tool (credito_pj_limite_consultar) directly addresses that domain. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the scope feel mismatched and bloated for a domain-specific server.
For a credit limit analysis server, there is only a single operation available. No history, management, or supporting credit-domain tools exist. While the marketplace tool could theoretically fill gaps, it is not domain-specific, so the surface is severely incomplete for the stated purpose.