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, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context about what the state includes (MCPs, connections, accounts, catalog counts) beyond those hints, without contradicting them.
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, information-dense sentence front-loaded with the main action ('Returns the current toolkit state'). It enumerates relevant details concisely without redundancy, making it easily scannable.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations that capture its safe read nature, the description sufficiently explains the return content. It could include the exact structure, but the listed components are enough for a zero-parameter info tool.
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 description adds no parameter semantics. The schema is trivially complete, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.
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, listing specific components: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version (likely version info) and authenticate/connect (actions).
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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when needing toolkit state or connection status) and provides context for using it to inspect accounts or MCPs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the purpose is self-evident.
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 clearly distinct purpose: authenticate handles login, connect checks connection status, ibama_embargos_consultar is the only domain operation, and the rest are platform utilities. No two tools overlap in function.
Naming styles are mixed: single verbs (authenticate, connect), a Portuguese snake_case domain tool (ibama_embargos_consultar), and English verb_noun combinations (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). This inconsistency makes the set feel disjointed.
The count of 7 is within a reasonable range, but the server named 'IBAMA Embargos' carries only one domain tool while the other six are generic platform utilities. This composition dilutes the server's focus and makes the count feel disproportionate to its stated purpose.
The domain surface is severely limited: only a single consult operation for embargo certificates. There are no other domain-relevant actions, and the platform tools are unrelated to the core domain, leaving obvious gaps for any workflow beyond a simple query.