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 and idempotentHint, but the description adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned (MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the structured annotations. It does not contradict annotations.
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 front-loads the action ('Returns') and then lists the returned details. Every phrase adds information, with no wasted words.
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 info tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and is sufficient context. The annotations cover safety, and sibling tools provide situational context.
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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly implies no input is needed, so no additional parameter context is required.
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 defines the resource (toolkit state) with enumerations: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which imply 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 implies usage for inspecting toolkit state but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are present.
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, but 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection status, which could cause confusion. The other tools (authenticate, marketplace, identidade_ar_consultar, report_bug, show_version) are well-separated.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), and one is a Portuguese compound (identidade_ar_consultar). While all use snake_case, the grammatical pattern varies significantly.
7 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool earns its place, covering platform management, identity verification, pricing, and support, without excessive overlap or bloat.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of the server's apparent scope: authentication, connection status, identity checking, marketplace search and invocation, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations.