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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying what the state includes, providing context beyond the raw annotation hints. It doesn't contradict annotations and gives useful behavioral expectations about the return content.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and then lists the key items in the returned state. It is concise with no filler words or redundancy.
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 simple no-parameter introspection tool, the description fully covers the tool's scope. It explains the return content comprehensively (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which suffices in the absence of an output schema. The annotations and empty schema complete the context.
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 no parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter syntax. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value. No additional parameter guidance is necessary.
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 the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like connect/authenticate (which establish connections) and show_version (which reports version).
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 for inspecting toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this to check connection status instead of reconnect'). The context from sibling names suggests a use case, but the description itself lacks direct guidance on when/when-not to use.
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 seven fipe_* tools each target a distinct step in the FIPE data lookup (brands, models, years, price, history, search, reference dates), and their names make their purposes clear. However, connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and marketplace bundles many sub-operations into one tool, creating minor ambiguity.
FIPE tools follow a consistent fipe_<noun> pattern, but the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) use generic verbs/nouns without a shared convention, mixing styles within the same server.
13 tools is within the ideal range for a domain-specific data server; the 7 FIPE tools are well-scoped and the 6 platform utilities are justified for authentication, marketplace access, and system status.
The FIPE data surface is complete: marcas → modelos → anos → preco covers the full drill-down, with buscar, historico, and tabelas_referencia adding search, time series, and date selection. No obvious missing operations for the domain.