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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific content of the state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which provides useful context beyond 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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists the return components without any unnecessary 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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns. It does so by enumerating the four components. Given the simplicity (no params, no side effects), this is complete.
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 the description correctly doesn't discuss them. The baseline score for 0 params is 4.
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') and enumerates the included information (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or 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 over alternatives, nor does it mention sibling tools or exclusions. Usage is implied by the description of what it returns, but no direct guidance is provided.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but marketplace bundles many sub-actions (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, etc.) into one tool, and connect/toolkit_info both report connection/status information, creating some boundary ambiguity.
Naming is mixed: simple verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun patterns (show_version, report_bug, toolkit_info), a single noun (marketplace), and a domain-specific compound (nfe_inutilizacao_consultar) do not follow a consistent convention, though names remain readable.
With 7 tools, the count is within a normal range, but only one tool (nfe_inutilizacao_consultar) relates to the server's stated purpose of NFe inutilizações. The other six are generic platform utilities that inflate the count for a domain-specific server.
The domain surface is severely limited: a single consult operation (nfe_inutilizacao_consultar) with no additional NFe-related operations such as listing, filtering, or exporting. The platform tools do not address the domain, leaving agents with only one tool for all NFe tasks.