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, and destructiveHint=false, matching the non-mutating 'Returns'. The description adds useful detail about the returned content (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts), providing value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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, front-loaded with the verb and object, and uses a clear list to enumerate the returned components. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns, listing each component of the toolkit state. It is self-contained and adequately comprehensive for an agent 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 information for the description to add. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 a specific resource ('current toolkit state') while enumerating the exact components returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools 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 clearly establishes the use case: when you need to inspect the toolkit's current state. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is evident from the description, and no further guidance is necessary for this simple info tool.
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 clear, distinct purposes (marketplace, obito_consultar, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). The only ambiguity is between authenticate and connect, both of which deal with authentication and connection status, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong one.
Naming styles are inconsistent: some tools use single verbs (authenticate, connect), some use snake_case verb_noun (obito_consultar, report_bug), and others use noun forms (marketplace, toolkit_info) or mixed (show_version). There is also a mix of English and Portuguese, further reducing predictability.
7 tools is a reasonable count, falling within the typical 3-15 range. The count is appropriate, though the server mixes a single domain-specific tool with several platform-level utilities, which makes the scope slightly uneven but not excessive.
The server is named 'Óbito' and the core purpose appears to be death-status consultation via obito_consultar, but the tool surface includes only that one domain operation. There are no supporting tools like query history, batch lookup, or results reporting, so the domain coverage is notably shallow. The platform tools are broad, but they don't compensate for the limited domain-specific functionality.