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 establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds meaningful context by specifying what data is returned (connections, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond the annotations. It does not cover edge cases like empty states or authentication dependencies, but the additional detail is valuable.
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, well-structured sentence leads with the action and then lists the specific data returned, making it immediately scannable. There is no redundant information or filler, so every word earns its place.
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 low-complexity, zero-parameter read-only tool, the description adequately captures the primary return elements. It could improve by addressing potential empty results or the meaning of connection statuses, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and good annotation support.
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 the input schema is trivially complete and there is no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly implies the tool acts on the entire toolkit without needing inputs, matching the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state,' then enumerates the exact components returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like authenticate or connect.
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 the tool is used to obtain a high-level status overview of the toolkit, and the sibling context confirms its unique role. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving room for more explicit guidance.
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 clearly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, vehicle query, marketplace, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. Minor overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info, both of which expose connection status, but they emphasize different aspects.
Naming is mixed: several tools use imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), while others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a Portuguese compound (detran_go_veiculo_consultar). This inconsistency makes the set feel less cohesive.
Seven tools is a reasonable count in general, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the DETRAN vehicle domain. The server's narrow purpose is diluted by infrastructure tools, making the count inappropriate for its stated scope.
The only domain-specific tool is a single query operation; there are no other vehicle-related actions (e.g., lookup by plate, vehicle history, or listing). The remaining tools address platform administration, leaving obvious functional gaps for any real DETRAN vehicle use case.