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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing what state components are returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 main action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific components. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.
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?
This is a simple, read-only, no-parameter, no-output-schema tool. The description fully captures what the agent needs to know: what the tool returns and its scope. There are no prerequisites, side effects, or error conditions to disclose. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 0 parameters, and the schema is empty. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. Per the baseline rule for 0 params, this scores 4. The description correctly focuses entirely on the return value since there are no inputs.
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 starts with a specific verb 'Returns' and immediately specifies the resource: 'current toolkit state'. It enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate 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 implicitly communicates when to use it (when you need toolkit state details) and the scope of information provided. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the nature of the tool makes the use case obvious. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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 only domain-specific tool, ibama_autuacoes_consultar, is clearly distinct, but the platform utilities overlap (e.g., connect and toolkit_info both report connection state) and marketplace introduces a meta-layer that confuses the set's purpose. The descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could easily misselect among the generic tools.
Names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese phrase (ibama_autuacoes_consultar). All use lowercase underscores, but the lack of a consistent pattern and mixed languages make it unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but six are generic platform utilities that don't belong in a server named for IBAMA autuações, making the count feel inflated for the stated domain. The single domain tool is appropriate, yet the presence of marketplace and account tools dilutes the set's focus.
For a public-data query MCP, the single consultar tool covers the essential operation, but there are no complementary features like history, batch lookup, or export. The marketplace tool can fill some gaps by invoking other MCPs, but that's not part of this server's native domain surface.