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's 'Returns' aligns safely. The description adds concrete details about the data returned (MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), which is useful context beyond the generic annotations. No hidden behaviors or side effects are mentioned, but none are expected for a read-only state query.
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 key action ('Returns the current toolkit state') followed by a concise list of content items. Every word contributes meaning 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?
Given that this is a simple no-parameter query with no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool returns. It covers all relevant aspects of the response, making it complete for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't attempt to explain parameters, which is correct since there are none to clarify. No further semantic enrichment is 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 the specific verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace.
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 — one would call this to inspect toolkit state — but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context of sibling tools suggests distinct roles, but the description itself lacks direct 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.
Most tools serve distinct platform functions; connect and toolkit_info overlap somewhat on connection status but are clearly separated by focus (URLs/auth vs installed MCPs/accounts). The single domain tool stands apart naturally, leaving little ambiguity.
Names mix verb-based (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info) and a Portuguese domain-specific name (prf_infracoes_consultar), showing no consistent pattern beyond lowercase underscores.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but six are generic platform utilities while only one addresses the stated PRF domain, making the set feel bloated and off-topic for a server named 'Infrações da PRF'.
The domain surface is minimal—only a single consultation tool for traffic fines with no additional operations like export, reporting, or support for different query types. The generic platform tools do not contribute to domain coverage.