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 this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what state is returned, though it does not describe output format or edge cases.
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 with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase contributes meaningful information about the tool's output.
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 having no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates what the return value covers: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. For a parameterless status/introspection tool, this is complete and self-contained.
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 an empty input schema, so there are no parameter details to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.
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 identifies a precise resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or show_version.
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 implies the tool is used to inspect toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. This is implied usage guidance rather than explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Several tools overlap in the authentication/connection space (authenticate, connect, toolkit_info), and the massive marketplace tool dwarfs the single domain-specific tool. An agent may struggle to choose the right tool for routine setup vs. actual certificate consultation.
Tool names mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), a Portuguese descriptive phrase (pref_ba_ilheus_cnd_consultar), and compound verbs (report_bug, show_version). No consistent verb_noun pattern is followed.
Seven tools is numerically reasonable, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated purpose. The actual domain-specific functionality is reduced to a single tool, making the set feel bloated and misaligned.
The domain of issuing a negative certificate is served by one core consultation tool, but no additional domain operations (e.g., certificate history, validation, cancellation) exist. The platform tools add unrelated breadth rather than filling domain-specific gaps.