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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what information is returned but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as freshness, caching, or connection overhead.
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 sentence that front-loads the result and then enumerates exactly what is included. Every phrase earns its place, with no tautology or redundant elaboration.
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 zero-parameter, read-only information tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value: installed MCPs, statuses, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. Nothing necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 fully covers this with an empty properties object. Per baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter-related expectations.
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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is clear and concrete, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like show_version or dfe_list_accounts.
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 intended use is implied by the content: call this to inspect overall toolkit state. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings such as dfe_list_accounts or show_version, and no 'when not to use' note.
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 six dfe_* tools are clearly distinguished by key/NSU/sync/quota/account/DANFE, but the platform layer has overlap: connect and toolkit_info both report connection/status, and marketplace contains a report_bug action that duplicates the standalone report_bug tool. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent can still misselect between these near-duplicate entry points.
The dfe_ prefix gives the fiscal tools a recognizable family, but the set mixes Portuguese and English (dfe_consultar_chave vs dfe_list_accounts) and mixes prefixed domain verbs with bare English platform verbs (authenticate, connect, show_version). It is readable and mostly snake_case, but not one consistent convention.
Twelve tools is a reasonable, manageable count. The slight over-inclusion comes from six generic platform/meta tools (marketplace, authenticate, toolkit_info, report_bug, etc.) that sit alongside the DF-e domain tools, making the surface broader than the server name implies.
The receipt-side DF-e workflow is mostly covered: sync, lookup by chave/NSU, quota check, account listing, and DANFE generation all exist. However, there is no manifestation/event tool (ciência, confirmação, desconhecimento), so resumo documents cannot be upgraded to complete XML/DANFE within this server, and the sync description references an auditor_fiscal_auditar_nota tool that is not present.