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 and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the exact components of the returned state and claiming it is 'current', implying a fresh snapshot. No contradictions with annotations; no further side-effect details are necessary for a safe read-only operation.
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 action and lists all key return areas (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) in a compact, readable manner. Every word contributes value with 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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully enumerates what the tool returns: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts per MCP, and the number of exposed catalog tools. This is complete for a simple status-inspection tool with strong annotations.
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 accepts zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' with a well-defined resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates concrete components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate', which are action-oriented.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative references are provided, but the read-only state description makes it evident that this tool is for inspecting configuration rather than modifying it. The context is clear, though it lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons that would earn a 5.
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 clearly distinct purposes: auth handles login, connect reports connection status, marketplace manages the MCP catalog, pep_parentescos_consultar performs the domain query, and the rest are utility/feedback/version tools. However, connect and toolkit_info both provide connection/status information, which could cause an agent to select the wrong one.
Naming style is mixed: some tools are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a different convention (pep_parentescos_consultar). Although all are lowercase with underscores, the lack of a consistent verb/noun pattern reduces predictability.
Seven tools is within the typical range, but the server's declared domain (PEP parentescos) is covered by only one tool; the rest are platform-level utilities (auth, marketplace, version, etc.). This makes the tool count feel inflated relative to the domain purpose, though it is not extreme.
The domain tool provides the core capability (PEP/relationship check via CPF) and is backed by platform tools for authentication, payment, and status. There are no obvious dead ends, though there is no consult history or batch operation, which would be minor enhancements.