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 and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds detail on what state is returned (connection status, accounts, tool counts), which gives helpful context without contradicting 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and lists specific content. Every word adds value with no 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?
The description covers the key aspects of what the tool returns, sufficient for a simple info tool without an output schema. It could mention whether it includes errors or connection failures, but it explicitly lists connection status, which implies that.
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 there is nothing to explain. The description correctly focuses on the return value, and the high schema coverage (though trivial) makes parameter explanation unnecessary.
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 tool returns current toolkit state, listing specific contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate and 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 usage for checking overall toolkit status, which is natural for an info tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given its read-only nature and sibling set, the context is clear.
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 in purpose: authenticate and connect handle credentials, marketplace handles discovery/execution, toolkit_info shows state, ecac_dctf_web_consultar does a specific query, report_bug and show_version are utility functions. However, connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, and marketplace's invoke behavior might confuse with directly calling tools like ecac_dctf_web_consultar if not careful.
The naming is inconsistent: most tools use lowercase snake_case or simple verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), but ecac_dctf_web_consultar uses a mixed pattern with underscores and a domain-specific name, breaking the convention. It's readable but not uniform.
7 tools is reasonable for a combined MCP marketplace and specific query server. The count is not excessive, and each tool serves a distinct function, though some like report_bug and show_version are minor utilities.
The surface covers authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery/invocation, toolkit state, and a specific query tool. It lacks obvious operations like uninstall/subscribe are embedded in marketplace, and there's no tool for managing tokens directly (only via authenticate). Overall, the domain is covered adequately, though some marketplace operations are bundled into one mega-tool.