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, so the description's main contribution is specifying the output content. It reveals that the tool returns the connected accounts per MCP and the count of catalog tools, adding behavioral context beyond the safety hint without contradicting 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 core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then efficiently lists the specific data points. Every word adds value, and the sentence is easy to scan, making it ideal for an agent parsing tool descriptions.
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 parameterless read-only status tool, the description covers the key return categories: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It does not specify the exact output format or field names, but given the simple nature and no output schema, this is sufficiently complete to set correct expectations.
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 empty schema fully documents the input surface. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description meets that by not inventing unnecessary input requirements.
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 purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates the exact data points it provides (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on actions like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, making its function unambiguous.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose this over show_version or other informational tools, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the function's nature as a status inspection tool, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and marketplace can invoke PEP queries that overlap with pep_consultar. This creates potential selection confusion, though descriptions help clarify.
Naming is inconsistent: mix of verbs (authenticate, connect), noun (marketplace), Portuguese (pep_consultar), and different snake_case patterns (report_bug vs toolkit_info). No uniform verb_noun structure.
Seven tools is a well-scoped count for a platform client with one domain-specific tool; each tool earns its place.
Covers authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version, and toolkit state. For the PEP domain, it provides a single lookup tool, but the platform aspect is fairly complete. Minor gap: no tool for uninstalling/disconnecting beyond marketplace sub-actions.