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, and the description reinforces this by describing a read-only state query. It adds behavioral context by listing the specific categories of information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond the annotation's bare safety flags.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and uses a colon-separated list for details. Every word is informative; no filler or redundant phrasing.
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 stateless read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns, making it complete for an agent to decide invocation and interpret results. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers content.
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 takes zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (empty properties). No parameter explanation is needed, and baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are 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 resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or marketplace.
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 checking the current state of the toolkit, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions. Clear context is provided, but no direct when-to-use guidance.
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 tools serve mostly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace browsing, the domain-specific query, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is slight overlap between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' in connection status reporting, but the descriptions clarify their distinct focuses.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are verb-noun ('report_bug', 'show_version'), one is a single verb ('connect'), one is a noun ('marketplace'), one is a long Portuguese phrase ('mte_infracoes_consultar'), and one mixes noun+noun ('toolkit_info'). This heterogeneous naming makes the set feel uncoordinated.
Seven tools is within a typical range, but only one tool actually addresses the server's stated purpose of labor infractions. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the server feel overstuffed with unrelated functionality for a specialist domain.
For a server dedicated to 'Infrações Trabalhistas', the only domain tool is a single query by CPF/CNPJ. There are no additional operations like listing infraction details, appeals, or supporting different query types. The surface is minimal and likely insufficient for broader use cases.