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, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds what the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects (none expected), delays due to network checks, or the exact structure of the returned state. With strong annotations, the description adds acceptable but not extensive value beyond them.
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 description is a single sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Returns') and precisely lists the content. No filler, no excess.
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?
Given the tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient detail about the return contents. One could argue for a perfect 5, but mentioning the exact format or whether the info is real-time vs cached could be slightly more complete. Still, for a simple info tool, it is highly complete.
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 description's only job is to explain what the tool does, which it does robustly. Since there are no parameters, the schema provides no ambiguity, and the description fully compensates. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that bar.
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 what the tool returns: current toolkit state including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It uses specific verbs ('returns') and defines the resource ('current toolkit state') with concrete detail, distinguishing it from siblings 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 when to use this tool (when you need an overview of toolkit configuration) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given that sibling names like authenticate and connect exist, more explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool would be helpful, but the description's context is clear enough for a read-only info tool.
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: domain-specific query vs. platform utilities. However, 'authenticate' and 'connect' overlap in managing connections, which could cause misselection. The remaining tools are clearly separate.
Names are inconsistent: most are camelCase (e.g., 'marketplace', 'report_bug', 'show_version') but the domain tool uses snake_case ('detran_pr_veiculo_consultar'). Mixed conventions and no unified verb-noun pattern.
Seven tools is within a reasonable count, but only one is domain-specific; the rest are generic MCP platform utilities. This feels like a bundle rather than a focused DETRAN server, making scope unclear.
The DETRAN domain is represented by a single consulting tool. No update, delete, or other lifecycle operations. While the service may be read-only, the lack of any additional domain actions leaves the surface thin.