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 returned toolkit state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond the annotations to clarify the nature and granularity of the output.
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 immediately states the verb ('Returns') and resource, followed by a clear list of the state components. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.
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 zero-parameter, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool returns and its scope. It covers the key aspects of toolkit state that an agent would need to decide whether to call it, and no additional context is necessary given the tool's simplicity.
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 zero parameters, making parameter semantics trivially covered. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline score of 4, and the description appropriately omits any parameter explanations since there are none.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and a detailed resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and 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 by describing what info is returned, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_version or ibama_regularidade_consultar. No exclusion criteria or alternative references are given, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.
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 distinct names and purposes, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and marketplace is a vast catch-all for many sub-operations. The mix of one domain-specific tool (ibama_regularidade_consultar) with six generic platform tools also makes the server's purpose confusing for an agent.
Naming conventions are highly inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), snake_case in Portuguese (ibama_regularidade_consultar), compound nouns (toolkit_info), and one bare noun (marketplace). There is no predictable verb_noun pattern, and mixed languages further undermine consistency.
At 7 tools, the count is within the normal range, but the server's name suggests an IBAMA-focused purpose; only one tool actually belongs to that domain. The other six are general platform utilities, making the set feel misaligned with the server's identity, though not extreme.
The core domain function (ibama_regularidade_consultar) is covered as a single-point query, and the authentication/connection flow is supported by platform tools. However, there are no additional IBAMA-related operations (e.g., batch queries, status checks, or document verifications), so the domain surface is minimal. The platform side is broad but not deeply integrated with the domain.