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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by detailing the specific contents of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). No contradictions with 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then compactly lists the contained data. Every word adds value; there is no fluff.
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 is a simple read-only query with no parameters and robust annotations, the description fully captures the return scope without needing an output schema. It lists all key parts of the state, making the tool's behavior predictable and complete for an agent.
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 baseline is 4. The description correctly does not discuss parameters, and the schema confirms no inputs are needed. Nothing more is required here.
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 identifies a clear resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates what that includes: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from the ifood data tools listed as siblings.
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 a use case (checking toolkit state) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'connect' or 'authenticate'. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, but the context of being a status/summary tool makes the primary use reasonably clear.
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 iFood-specific tool targets a distinct resource (catalog, availability, financial summary, store, order detail, order list, transactions). The generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are also distinct. The only slight overlap is between connect and authenticate, but their descriptions clearly separate connection status from token-based login.
Names are all snake_case but follow mixed patterns. The iFood tools use a consistent 'ifood_vendas_' prefix followed by nouns or noun phrases (cardapio, disponibilidade, financeiro_resumo, pedido_detalhe). Platform tools use imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug) or descriptive names (toolkit_info). No uniform verb_noun convention exists across the set.
13 tools is within a reasonable range, but 6 of them (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are generic platform utilities unrelated to iFood. This makes the server feel like a mixed bag rather than a focused iFood integration, reducing appropriateness for the server's stated purpose.
The iFood tools cover read-only workflows: catalog, availability, financial summary, store data, order listing, order detail, and financial transactions. However, there are no write operations (e.g., update menu, cancel order) and no search/filter capabilities beyond basic period-based listing. Core read operations are covered, but the surface is incomplete for full lifecycle management.