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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context about what the return value contains (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions; it fully describes the tool's behavioral output.
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 conveys the full purpose and scope without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.
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 read-only, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the exact information returned and implies the general purpose. No additional context is needed given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of sibling tools with distinct roles.
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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool starts at 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to add, and the schema already says all that's 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly defines the resource (current toolkit state), enumerating exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or show_version, which serve different purposes.
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?
Usage context is clear: this is the go-to tool for inspecting toolkit state. It implies when to use it (e.g., before connecting or diagnosing issues) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. That said, the tool's purpose is inherently distinct from the siblings, so the guidance is adequate.
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 roles, but marketplace is a catch-all that overlaps with toolkit_info (list_tools vs. installed MCPs) and authenticate/connect both deal with connection state. The mix of PIS-specific and platform-level tools also creates ambiguity about which tool handles a given request.
All names use lowercase with underscores, which is consistent, but the naming style varies: some are imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is Portuguese verb-noun (pis_consultar). This mixed pattern breaks the expected verb_noun consistency.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but for a server named 'PIS (Ministério do Trabalho)', only one tool actually relates to PIS. The other six are generic MCP platform utilities (marketplace, auth, version, etc.) that do not belong under this name, making the count inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
The PIS domain is covered by only a single consultation tool; there are no other PIS operations (e.g., statement retrieval, updates). The platform utilities are comprehensive for managing MCPs, but they are irrelevant to the core domain. This leaves the surface feeling incomplete for a server claiming to provide PIS services.