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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add context. It does: specifies exactly what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). No contradictions. Adds value beyond 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?
One clear sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, lists key output elements without verbosity.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully conveys what it returns (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts). It is complete for the agent's needs.
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?
Zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for no params is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate, and it doesn't.
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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'current toolkit state', listing specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented. No ambiguity.
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 use for checking toolkit state, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Context is clear (informational read), but no explicit usage 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 tools are mostly distinct, but connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, with toolkit_info being a superset. marketplace is a large multi-capability tool but clearly separate from the vehicle query tool.
Naming is inconsistent: English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long Portuguese snake_case name (detran_pi_veiculo_consultar) are all mixed, with no clear convention.
Although 7 tools is a reasonable count, the server's stated purpose is vehicle consultation, but only one tool serves that domain. The other six are generic platform management tools, making the set poorly scoped for its apparent intent.
For the named domain, the surface is severely incomplete—only a single query operation exists, with no supporting operations. The platform-related tools do not fill domain gaps, so the set lacks coherent coverage of any single purpose.