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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the live nature of the state and the specific information returned, helping set expectations for a read-only introspection call. 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and uses a list for details. 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?
With zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: it's a read-only tool that returns a snapshot of toolkit state, including connection statuses and account associations. This is sufficient for a simple introspection tool.
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 input schema is trivially complete. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; the baseline of 4 applies.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource 'current toolkit state' with enumerated details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' which likely returns version info.
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 it is used to inspect the toolkit state, but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or provide exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is mostly implied.
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 marketplace tool bundles many sub-actions (search, describe, invoke, install, prompts, etc.) that overlap with report_bug, connect, and toolkit_info, making it unclear which tool to choose for a given task. However, mpt_consultar is clearly distinct, and the core tools are mostly separable.
Tool names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), Portuguese verbs (mpt_consultar), and snake_case verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version). There is no consistent naming convention, which reduces predictability.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a platform server covering authentication, connection status, marketplace access, bug reporting, versioning, and toolkit state. The broad scope justifies the number, though one tool (marketplace) carries a disproportionate amount of functionality.
The platform lifecycle is well-covered: authentication, connection checks, marketplace exploration/invocation/installation, billing, bug reporting, and version/info. The mpt_consultar tool addresses the specific MPT domain query. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated credential management beyond authenticate, but core workflows are not dead-ended.