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 cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds return-value detail (state, connections, accounts, tool counts) but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or prerequisites. With annotations present, this is within the expected range.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the full scope of the tool. No redundant or extraneous words, and the structure makes the return content immediately clear.
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 describes the return value (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This is enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and details exactly what that includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate 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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives to consider. It relies on the reader to infer that this is for checking toolkit state, but it doesn't contrast with show_version or other sibling tools. The purpose is clear enough that a 3 is appropriate, but a 4 would require explicit context.
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 platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are each distinct in purpose, and offshore_leaks_consultar is clearly the only data-facing tool. However, the mix of platform utilities with a single domain-specific query could confuse an agent about the server's primary function.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single-word nouns (connect, marketplace), verb_noun snake_case (offshore_leaks_consultar), and camelCase-like compounds (show_version, toolkit_info). This inconsistency makes the tool set feel haphazard.
With 7 tools but only one actually related to Offshore Leaks, the count is highly inappropriate. The server appears to be a generic MCP platform masquerading as an offshore-leaks data source, so the tool count does not match the server's stated purpose.
The offshore-leaks domain is severely underserved: there is only a single query tool (consultar) and no capabilities for retrieving details, listing entities, or any other data operations. The platform tools are irrelevant to the domain, leaving the core functionality almost entirely missing.