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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing what the tool returns (the toolkit state in terms of MCPs, connections, accounts, and tool counts), which gives the agent a clearer picture of the behavioral output. No contradictions with 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 primary action and then enumerates the key data points. Every phrase contributes meaning without redundancy or verbosity.
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 read-only tool with no input parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value at a high level. It could be slightly more explicit about the response structure or format, but it effectively communicates the essential information an agent needs to understand the tool's function.
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 there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately omits any parameter discussion since none exist.
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 a specific action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and lists the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate' which perform actions rather than report state.
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: to retrieve toolkit status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over other information-gathering tools (e.g., 'show_version') or provide any exclusion criteria. No alternatives are named, leaving usage inference up to the agent.
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 roles: authentication, status, marketplace operations, version, toolkit info, bug reporting, and the single OAB lookup. However, 'marketplace' bundles many sub-actions (search, describe, invoke, install, prompts) which could be confusing, and 'connect' overlaps with 'authenticate' in terms of connection status.
Naming is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are noun-style (marketplace, toolkit_info), one is Portuguese with underscores (oab_advogados_consultar), and others use underscores but with different conventions (report_bug, show_version). There is no clear verb_noun pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a platform server, though most of them are generic meta-tools. The count is not excessive, but the mix of domain and platform tools feels slightly awkward. Still, it is within a typical well-scoped range.
Given the server name 'OAB Cadastro de Advogados', the only domain-specific tool is a single lookup by name and registration number. There are no other OAB-related operations (e.g., listing, verifying, or detailed info). The rest are generic platform tools, making the domain coverage severely incomplete.