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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the content of the return value (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog tool count), which is especially useful because there is no output 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb first and lists the return contents in a compact, readable list. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.
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 informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and the nature of the operation. It provides sufficient context for an agent to know what to expect and when to call it, even without additional structured schemas.
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 effectively 100%. The description need not explain parameters, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. No additional parameter semantics are required.
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 precisely states the resource ('current toolkit state') along with the exact information included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented.
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 the tool is for checking toolkit state without touching anything, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of other tools. However, given the read-only nature and distinct purpose, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but authenticate and connect both deal with authentication/connection, and connect and toolkit_info both report status. The remaining tools (dap_pronaf_pj_consultar, marketplace, report_bug, show_version) have clear, non-overlapping purposes.
Naming is inconsistent: verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) mix with nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a Portuguese phrase 'dap_pronaf_pj_consultar' that doesn't follow any clear pattern. No consistent convention is applied across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a server that combines a domain-specific consultation function with platform utilities. It sits within the typical well-scoped range, though the scope is heavily weighted toward platform management rather than domain operations.
The domain purpose (DAP consultation by CNPJ) is fully covered by the single domain tool, and the marketplace tool provides access to a vast range of additional MCPs, making the overall surface quite complete. Platform management and feedback channels are also present, so no major gaps are evident.