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. The description goes further by specifying exactly what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction.
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 immediately states the return value and then lists the key components. Every word adds value, 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 read-only information tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully communicates what the agent will receive. There are no hidden behaviors, prerequisites, or side effects to disclose. The tool is simple, and the description is sufficient.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' followed by a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which handle setup rather than introspection.
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 purpose implies usage: it is the tool for checking toolkit status and connectivity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the clear scope and sibling list, an agent can infer when to choose this tool over others. A minor gap is the lack of explicit 'when to use' guidance.
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 have clear, distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state are all separate concerns. However, `connect` and `toolkit_info` overlap somewhat in reporting connection status, and `marketplace` is a large catch-all that could be confused with a standalone platform tool.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some are single verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), some are verb_noun (`report_bug`, `show_version`), one is a noun (`marketplace`), one is noun_info (`toolkit_info`), and one mixes English with Portuguese (`fbi_most_wanted_consultar`). This inconsistency makes the set feel like a random collection rather than a coherent API.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a general utility server, but the server is named 'FBI Most Wanted' and only one tool is domain-specific. The other six are platform administration tools that do not relate to the stated purpose, making the scope confusing and the count feel inflated for a specialized server.
For the FBI Most Wanted domain, only a single lookup operation is provided, lacking features like listing all wanted persons, retrieving details, or batch searching. The platform utilities cover metadata and lifecycle operations, but there are notable gaps in the domain-specific functionality that would require agents to rely on the generic `marketplace` for deeper coverage.