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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral information by enumerating exactly what the tool returns (installed MCPs, their statuses, accounts, and tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 efficiently conveys all key information without any filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Returns the current toolkit state') followed by specific details.
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, zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent can expect: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. No additional return format or behavior is necessary.
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 schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter details.
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, listing specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like connect or authenticate, which perform actions rather than report state.
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 clear the tool is for inspecting the current toolkit state, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The context is transparent, and no exclusions are needed, so this gets a 4.
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 authenticate and connect both relate to authentication and connection status, which could cause confusion. Marketplace is a catch-all for many sub-functions, making it unclear when to use it versus other tools.
Tool names are inconsistent: some are English verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a Portuguese snake_case function (dap_pronaf_pf_consultar). There is no consistent verb_noun or stylistic pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a server that combines platform utilities with a domain-specific query. However, the marketplace tool is a mega-tool that could be split into multiple tools, slightly inflating the effective surface.
The server covers platform operations well (auth, connection, version, bug reporting, toolkit info) but lacks domain-specific operations beyond the single consultation tool. There are no update or delete operations for DAP data, but that may be outside the server's intended scope.