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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds valuable context about the specific state elements returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), going beyond annotation basics 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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific information included. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns. Annotations cover the safety and behavioral constraints, and the description covers the content scope, making it entirely complete for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.
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, so the description bears no burden of explaining parameter semantics. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds value by describing what the tool outputs, making the schema coverage complete and the tool self-explanatory.
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 ('Returns') and a well-defined resource ('current toolkit state'), detailing what aspects are covered: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinctively differentiates it from siblings like authenticate or connect by focusing on a comprehensive overview.
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 implies a read-only status query use case, appropriate for inspecting the toolkit's current state. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is unmistakable and sufficient for an agent to choose this tool over connection- or authentication-oriented siblings.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace, debtor lookup, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is no overlap between these operations, so an agent can easily select the right tool for the task.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools are single verbs (authenticate, connect), others are verb-noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), and the domain tool is in Portuguese (pgfn_devedores_consultar). This inconsistent style and language mixing make the tool names less predictable.
The count of 7 tools is within a normal range, but the composition is unbalanced: only one tool (pgfn_devedores_consultar) relates to the server's stated domain (PGFN debtors), while the other six are generic platform utilities. This dilutes the focus and makes the tool set feel scoped more to the platform than to its declared purpose.
The sole domain tool covers a simple debtor lookup (CPF/CNPJ verification), which is a complete operation for that specific query. However, there is no additional functionality such as detailed debtor information, history, or batch queries, and the numerous platform tools do not contribute to domain coverage, leaving the surface thin for a dedicated debtors service.