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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific data scope (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which clarifies the behavioral output but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits or error behavior.
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 lists the return contents without redundant phrasing. It front-loads the action ('Returns') and then itemizes the data.
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 status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about the return value, covering the main categories. It doesn't need additional context given the annotations and simple 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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics.
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 a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact components returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version, which serve different purposes.
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 usage for checking toolkit status, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives such as show_version or connect. It provides clear context (returning status info) but no exclusions or alternative directions.
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 clearly distinct purposes: authenticate, connect, ibama_debitos_consultar, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info are all separate functions. The only minor overlap is that marketplace can also run tools like ibama_debitos_consultar, but its description makes clear it's a catalog/discovery mechanism.
Tool names are inconsistent: some are simple verbs (authenticate, connect), some are noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a long Portuguese snake_case name (ibama_debitos_consultar). This mixing of languages and patterns creates a lack of predictability.
The count of 7 is reasonable, but the majority (six of seven) are generic platform maintenance tools rather than domain-specific ones. For a server allegedly focused on IBAMA debts, the tool set feels bloated with unrelated utilities, though the count itself is not excessive.
For the sole domain function of issuing environmental debt certificates, ibama_debitos_consultar covers the core query but makes no provision for other related operations like validating a certificate, listing historical consultations, or managing credits directly. The platform tools fill some gaps (authentication, payment links) but the domain surface is incomplete.