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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds value by detailing the actual content of the returned state: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts, giving the agent a clear picture of the output without needing an output schema.
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 ('Returns') and immediately specifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), followed by a concise enumeration of contents. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 status tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates the key components of the return value, which is exactly what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result. There is no missing information that would impair usability.
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 is an empty object, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value instead, which fully compensates for the absence of parameter information.
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's purpose: it returns the current toolkit state. It enumerates specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, count of catalog tools), making it distinct from sibling tools like show_version 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 the tool is used for status checks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings such as show_version (version info) or connect (establishing connections). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
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 core enrichment tool is distinct, but there is overlap among the platform tools: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and authenticate is also related to connection setup. An agent could confuse which tool to use for checking connectivity or managing credentials.
Tool names are inconsistent in style: single verbs (authenticate, connect), a Portuguese noun-verb phrase (enriquecimento_lead_consultar), generic nouns (marketplace), and verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version). There is no predictable convention across the set.
Seven tools is within a reasonable count range, but the set mixes one domain-specific tool with several generic platform management tools, making the overall scope feel unbalanced. The count itself is appropriate, though not perfectly scoped.
The lead enrichment domain is severely under-covered: only one tool (enriquecimento_lead_consultar) performs enrichment, with no support for other identifier types, batch operations, or lead lifecycle management. The platform tools are generic and do not address the server's stated purpose.