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?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds value by specifying what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). This provides behavioral context about the output without contradicting the safety profile.
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 ('Returns') and the object ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates specifics. Every word adds value, with no fluff 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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return content: installed MCPs, their connection status, associated accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity, zero-parameter status tool, and annotations cover the behavioral profile.
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, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is no parameter information to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the return value rather than parameter semantics.
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 identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), listing concrete components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report state.
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 conveys that the tool provides an overview of the toolkit's state, making it obvious for status-checking use cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent would know when to invoke it, especially given the sibling list.
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.
The one domain tool is distinct, but several generic tools overlap: connect and toolkit_info both describe connection/state status, and marketplace lists operations that overlap with report_bug, toolkit_info, and connect. An agent could easily pick connect when it needs toolkit status or marketplace when it should call the dedicated CND tool.
Names mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun snake_case (report_bug, show_version), and a Portuguese domain-prefixed action (pref_mt_cuiaba_cnd_consultar). There is no consistent verb_noun or domain_prefix_action pattern across the set, so predicting the next tool name is hard.
Seven tools is not numerically excessive, but the set is not tightly scoped: one tool is the actual CND domain query and the rest are platform admin, marketplace, reporting, version, and connection utilities. It feels oversized for a focused Certidão Negativa server, yet still lands just inside the plausible range.
The only domain-specific capability is a single consultation tool; there is no native history, validation, download, or lifecycle coverage for a certidão workflow. If the domain goes beyond a one-off consult, the agent has significant gaps and is forced to rely on generic marketplace or admin tool paths.