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, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond annotations.
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 concise and complete—one sentence with no fluff. It clearly enumerates the returned information without unnecessary detail.
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 no-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and what it returns. It doesn't mention edge cases like empty results, but that's not critical for such a simple tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete given the 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 has zero parametershare, so there is nothing to document. Schema coverage is 100% and there are no parameter details needed. The description sufficiently clarifies what the tool outputs.
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 returns the current toolkit state with specific components: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a distinct purpose compared to sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions.
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 usage for inspecting the toolkit's current state but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. However, the tool name and description make it obvious that it is for information retrieval, not for performing actions.
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 (auth, marketplace, version, etc.), but 'authenticate' and 'connect' overlap in the authentication/connection space, and the descriptions are verbose enough to clarify, yet some ambiguity remains.
Naming convention is inconsistent: generic lowercase names (authenticate, connect) mix with a long prefixed domain tool (pref_ba_salvador_cnd_consultar) and camelCase (toolkit_info), showing no clear pattern.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable, but most are platform-level utilities unrelated to the server's stated domain (CND consultation), making the set feel bloated with generic functions.
The domain coverage is severely lacking: only one tool (pref_ba_salvador_cnd_consultar) addresses the core purpose, with no supporting operations (e.g., list certificates, verify status, handle errors) to make it a complete service.