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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing exactly what state is returned, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts, going beyond the annotation-only information.
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 sentence that efficiently enumerates the returned data without any wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Returns') and then lists the specific components.
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, parameterless tool, the description fully captures what the tool does and what to expect. Although there is no output schema, the description lists the return components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making it self-explanatory.
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 takes no parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so the baseline for zero parameters is 4. There is no parameter information to convey.
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' and clearly defines the resource as 'current toolkit state', listing exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version, which likely reports version information.
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 tool's purpose obvious, so an agent can infer to use it when needing an overview of the toolkit's configuration and connection status. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which would have earned a 5.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, Garantia Safra query, marketplace, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit info. Minor overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info, but they are still distinguishable.
Naming is inconsistent: most tools use English lowercase with underscores (authenticate, connect, report_bug), but one uses Portuguese (garantia_safra_consultar), and compound names vary (toolkit_info vs show_version). The mixed language and naming styles break any clear pattern.
Seven tools is within the typical range, but the server's purpose is muddled. Only one tool is domain-specific (Garantia Safra consultation), while the rest are generic platform utilities (marketplace, auth, reporting), making the count feel padded and unfocused.
For a server named Garantia Safra, only a single consult operation is provided, lacking any other domain-relevant actions. The remaining tools are about platform management rather than the domain, leaving obvious gaps if an agent expects to manage Garantia Safra data beyond a simple lookup.