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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what 'state' includes (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the bare name. No hidden side effects or constraints are implied, and nothing contradicts the 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the key output components. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition of the schema (which is empty).
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 the tool's simplicity (zero params, no output schema), the description fully captures its behavior and scope. It tells the agent exactly what to expect: a snapshot of MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts, which is sufficient for a read-only informational tool. No gaps remain.
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 the baseline is 4. The description appropriately explains what the tool returns, leaving no need for parameter documentation. It adds no redundant parameter info because none exist.
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 the exact resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which have 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?
The description conveys the tool's role as a state/info snapshot, making its use obvious for checking toolkit status. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but no overlapping sibling exists, so the context is clear enough. A minor omission is the lack of explicit 'use this when you need a summary' 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 have distinct purposes (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), but 'marketplace' is a catch-all with many sub-actions and overlaps with 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' in terms of status/installed state. The legal consultation tool is unique, but the platform tools create some boundary confusion.
Naming mixes English and Portuguese, single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb_noun snake_case (report_bug, show_version, processos_judiciais_completa_consultar with the verb at the end). There is no consistent convention.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the server is named 'Processos Judiciais' while most tools are generic platform management tools, making the scope feel mismatched. The count itself is not excessive, but the tool-to-purpose relationship is weak.
For a legal process domain, only one tool directly addresses the purpose; there are no other legal-specific operations beyond the single consultation. The remaining tools are unrelated to legal processes, so the completeness of the stated domain is severely lacking. If considered as a platform server, coverage is broader but still ad-hoc.