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 and destructiveHint=false, so no side-effect disclosure is needed. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the exact components of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), giving a transparent contract of what the tool reports. This is consistent with the annotations and provides useful behavioral context.
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, front-loaded sentence that begins with the action verb 'Returns' and immediately states the subject ('current toolkit state'). It then lists all relevant components in a compact, readable list. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description is fully self-contained. It explicitly enumerates all categories of information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), so an agent knows exactly what to expect. There is no missing information about inputs, outputs, or side effects that would impair correct 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs. The schema description coverage is effectively 100% since there is nothing to document.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what that includes (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate', which perform actions rather than report state.
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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool when you need to inspect the toolkit's operational state. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but because it is a unique read-only status tool, the intended context is obvious. No exclusions are stated, which aligns with a 'clear context, no exclusions' rating.
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.
Many tools have nearly identical descriptions, differing only by a single action name (e.g., dietbox_agenda_list vs dietbox_agenda_summary, multiple anamnesis read tools). This makes it hard for an agent to choose the correct tool. The splitting of CRUD operations into separate tools per action creates significant overlap.
Most Dietbox tools follow a consistent `dietbox_<entity>_<action>` snake_case pattern, but tools like `authenticate`, `connect`, `marketplace`, `report_bug`, `show_version`, and `toolkit_info` break this, making naming partially inconsistent. Overall, the pattern is clear for the core domain.
With 42 tools, the server is overburdened. Many tools are redundant due to splitting actions (e.g., three read tools for anamnesis), and non-domain tools (marketplace, bug reporting) inflate the count unnecessarily. A more streamlined set of 15-20 tools would be more appropriate.
The server covers a wide range of nutrition practice features: patients, appointments, anamnesis, anthropometry, chat, food diary, goals, finances, meal plans (read-only), prescriptions, and clinical records. However, notable write operations are missing (meal plans, goals, finance transactions), and some read-only tools lack corresponding edits.