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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, which is acceptable for a simple read-only operation but does not exceed the annotation baseline.
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 details. It contains no filler or repetition, making it highly concise and effective.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts). This is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function without additional documentation.
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 description does not need to explain any. The schema is empty, so the description's silence on parameters is entirely appropriate, earning the baseline score of 4.
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, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes it distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report status.
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 this tool should be used when one needs an overview of the toolkit's installed MCPs and their connectivity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. There is no exclusionary guidance or comparison with siblings such as show_version.
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 are distinct, but 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection status, creating overlap. The single domain tool is clearly separated from platform utilities.
Names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun in both English (report_bug, show_version) and Portuguese (credito_pj_risco_consultar), plus bare nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). No consistent pattern or language.
The count of 7 is reasonable, but most are generic platform utilities rather than domain-specific tools. The one credit risk tool is the core, making the set feel slightly overburdened with meta-tools.
The core credit risk query is covered, but there are no additional analysis or reporting tools. The marketplace tool mitigates gaps by enabling on-demand tool discovery, but the server's own domain surface is thin.