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, which covers the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by detailing what 'state' includes, going beyond the annotations. No contradictions or hidden side effects are indicated.
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 action and lists the key outputs. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no waste or 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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return contents. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what this tool offers without needing further details.
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 takes zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly focuses on the output, and there is no need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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' and clearly specifies the resource ('current toolkit state') and the exact components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or report_bug.
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 clear context for when to use the tool (to inspect toolkit state) and implicitly differentiates it from siblings by listing what it returns. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks the full exclusionary guidance for 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 distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, connect shows connection status, marketplace finds/runs MCPs, peti_trabalho_infantil_consultar queries PETI data, etc. However, connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, which could cause minor confusion.
Tool names mix styles: some are simple verbs (connect, authenticate), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a hyphenated branded name (peti_trabalho_infantil_consultar), and one is a pure noun (marketplace). The pattern is not uniform, though still readable.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable and within typical bounds. However, the server is branded as 'PETI (Trabalho Infantil)' yet only one tool directly relates to that domain, making the platform tools feel slightly excessive for the apparent purpose.
For the sole PETI-specific purpose, consulting a person's status by CPF/NIS is covered, but there are no additional operations like historical queries or batch checks. The platform management tools are comprehensive, but they are unrelated to the core domain, creating a sense of patchwork coverage.