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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the exact contents of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of what data to expect.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the return content without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding, making it an exemplary concise description.
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 introspection tool, the description fully covers the return value and its scope. It does not need an output schema because the fields are stated in prose, and no additional behavioral caveats are necessary at this complexity level.
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 and the schema has 100% coverage (empty properties object). The description appropriately avoids parameter details because none exist, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools 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 a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly defines the resource (current toolkit state), then enumerates exactly what that includes: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nuvemshop_list_accounts or 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 clearly indicates this tool is for obtaining an overall view of the toolkit's status, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., listing accounts individually), so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality, especially the get/list pairs for customers, orders, and products which have identical descriptions except for the default action. The multiple order write tools (cancel, close, fulfill, etc.) also share the same underlying description, making it difficult for an agent to select the correct one.
Tool names mix patterns: some use simple <resource> (nuvemshop_categories), others use <resource>_<action> (nuvemshop_customers_get), and others use <resource>_write_<action> (nuvemshop_orders_write_cancel). The get/list split for customers, orders, and products is inconsistent with the categories tool which lacks such a split.
With 24 tools, the server has an excessive number for its scope. Many tools are redundant (e.g., separate get and list tools for each resource, and individual write tools for order status transitions). Consolidating these would reduce the count and improve usability.
The server covers the main e-commerce resources (categories, coupons, customers, orders, products) with read and write operations. However, there are gaps: no ability to create or delete customers, delete products, or delete coupons. The set is workable but not fully comprehensive.