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 and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context about what state is surfaced (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, exposed tool counts), going beyond the bare 'read-only' label without contradicting 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?
The entire description is one focused sentence, front-loading the main verb and listing the returned items in a readable order. Every clause contributes useful information with no 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?
The tool has a minimal input surface (no parameters) and no output schema, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining expectations. It fully names the categories of data the call returns, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent.
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?
With zero parameters, the empty schema is fully sufficient (schema description coverage is trivially 100%). The description needs to explain no argument semantics; the baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 starts with 'Returns the current toolkit state', a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts per MCP, catalog tool counts). This clearly differentiates from siblings like show_version (version only) and authenticate/connect (actions).
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 presents a clear use case: retrieving the overall health and connectivity of the toolkit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the informational contents are specific enough that an agent knows when to call it (e.g., to check MCP status/credentials).
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: platform utilities (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) vs. one domain-specific query (der_pr_cnd_consultar). However, 'authenticate' and 'connect' overlap slightly in purpose, and 'marketplace' could be confused with 'toolkit_info' regarding MCP discovery.
Tool names mix languages (English and Portuguese: 'der_pr_cnd_consultar') and inconsistent patterns: some are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a different style (der_pr_cnd_consultar). This inconsistency makes it harder to anticipate functionality.
The server has 7 tools, which is within a reasonable range, but the purpose is ambiguous: the server name suggests a specific domain (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) yet the majority of tools are generic MCP platform utilities. This mismatch makes the tool set feel scattershot rather than focused.
For the stated domain (Certidão Negativa de Débitos), only a single consultation tool is provided, lacking other expected operations such as issuance, validation, or status checks. Meanwhile, the generic platform utilities are not directly relevant to the domain, leaving the server's core purpose under-covered.