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 valuable context by specifying the exact data returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate 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, focused sentence that front-loads the main verb and uses a colon to efficiently list the returned components. Every word adds value; there is no filler or redundancy.
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 without an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and is sufficiently detailed for an agent to select and invoke it. There are no missing parameters or behavioral caveats to disclose, and the sibling tools are clearly distinct.
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?
With zero parameters and empty input schema, the schema covers everything (100%). The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, as there are none. Baseline of 4 is warranted because no additional parameter semantics are needed.
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, with a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('toolkit state'). It enumerates the contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and show_version.
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 context (i.e., when you need to inspect toolkit state), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or direct references to sibling tools. The resource is distinct enough for inference, but explicit guidance is absent.
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: authentication, connection status, Interpol data lookup, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit state. There is no meaningful overlap that would confuse an agent.
Tool naming is inconsistent: some are single words (authenticate, connect, marketplace), some are snake_case verb_noun compounds (report_bug, show_version), and one is a non-English prefixed verb (interpol_consultar). This mixed style makes the naming pattern unpredictable.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the set is split between Interpol-specific functionality and generic MCP platform management, making the server's scope feel somewhat unfocused. Still, the count itself is not excessive.
The platform management side is fairly covered (auth, connection, toolkit info, marketplace, bug reporting), but the Interpol-specific side consists of only one tool, leaving no options for broader Interpol data queries or follow-up operations. This makes the server feel incomplete relative to its name.