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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the specific information returned, such as MCP connections and account details, without contradicting the 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, concise sentence that directly states what the tool returns without unnecessary words or repetition.
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 simple status tool with no parameters, the description fully captures what the tool does and what information it returns. It is complete and self-explanatory.
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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it provides sufficient detail about the output for a parameterless tool.
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: returning the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate and connect.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it is a read-only status tool, and the purpose is straightforward, so usage is inferred rather than explicitly guided.
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.
The JUCESP document tool is clearly distinct, and most platform tools have unique purposes, but the `marketplace` mega-tool overlaps with several others (connect, toolkit_info, report_bug) and makes boundaries fuzzy. An agent could be confused about whether to call `marketplace` or the more specific standalone tools for the same underlying actions.
Tool names mix English imperative verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`, `report_bug`, `show_version`), nouns (`marketplace`, `toolkit_info`), and a Portuguese snake_case domain tool (`jucesp_documento_consultar`). There is no consistent verb_noun or action_resource pattern across the set.
Seven tools is not inherently excessive, but six of them are generic MCP.AI platform/infrastructure tools unrelated to the server's stated JUCESP document-download purpose. The set is over-scoped for what should be a focused single-domain server, with only one tool actually performing the domain operation.
For the narrow stated purpose of downloading a JUCESP document from NIRE/registration number, `jucesp_documento_consultar` covers the core workflow directly. The main gap is the lack of any lookup/search tool for documents when the user does not already know the required identifiers, but that is a minor workaround gap for this specific domain.