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. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying exactly what 'state' means (MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts) without contradicting the 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's value without fluff or redundancy.
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 information tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys the return semantics. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter documentation, 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 and resource: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and itemizes the exact aspects (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like connect, authenticate, and show_version.
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 purpose is so clearly scoped that usage context is evident—an agent would know to call this when it needs toolkit state. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., show_version for version details).
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 purpose: authentication, connection status, FAP data query, marketplace catalog, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some are single-word verbs (connect, marketplace), one is snake_case with underscores (dataprev_fap_consultar), and others mix verb-noun (show_version) or noun-based (toolkit_info). There is no uniform pattern across the set.
With 7 tools, the set is reasonably scoped. It includes one domain-specific data tool and several generic platform utilities, which is slightly broad but not excessive or sparse.
For the primary purpose of FAP data lookup, the single query tool covers the core need. Authentication and status tools support the workflow, though there is no obvious additional data operation missing. The inclusion of platform-management tools extends beyond the domain but does not create a critical gap.