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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating exactly what information the tool returns, which helps the agent understand the tool's output without needing an output schema. No side effects or hidden behaviors are disclosed, but none appear needed for a read-only state query.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that starts with the verb 'Returns' and lists the key output categories. Every clause adds useful detail, with no redundant or filler wording.
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?
This is a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema. The description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool returns, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is complete enough for reliable selection and invocation.
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 the schema is irrelevantly covered at 100%, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description has no parameter burden to carry, and it correctly focuses on the return content instead.
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 names the exact resource 'current toolkit state', then breaks down what that state includes: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which have different purposes.
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 for inspecting toolkit state, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, mention prerequisites, or exclude use cases. The context is clear enough for a simple read-only info tool, but no explicit guidance is provided.
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.
The tool set contains one domain-specific tool (detran_pe_veiculo_consultar) and several platform utilities. Most have distinct purposes, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, which could cause minor confusion. Overall, the tools are well-separated.
Tool names mix English and Portuguese, and use inconsistent structural patterns. For example, 'marketplace' is a noun while 'authenticate' is a verb, and 'detran_pe_veiculo_consultar' follows a Portuguese naming convention. This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but the server's specific name suggests a focus on DETRAN PE vehicle data, yet only one tool directly addresses that. The remaining tools are generic platform utilities, which dilutes the server's apparent purpose.
The only domain-specific tool is a single query operation for DETRAN PE vehicles. No other vehicle-related operations are present, such as lookup by different identifiers, history, or fines. The platform utilities are comprehensive but do not contribute to the data domain, leaving the DETRAN coverage extremely thin.