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, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about the specific return contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.
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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then elaborates with a colon-separated list of details. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler 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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description must fully explain the return value. It does so thoroughly, enumerating the four key aspects of the toolkit state, and it aligns with the annotations. There are no gaps in understanding what the tool does.
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 the schema covers 100% of them (trivially). Since no parameters exist, the description does not need to add parameter context. The baseline of 4 is appropriate, and no issues are present.
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 explicit verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or connect, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 this tool is for inspecting the overall toolkit state, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, leaving a slight gap compared to tools that state 'use X instead'. The context is clear enough though.
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.
Each tool has a distinctly separate role: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, legal process consultation, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit state. No two tools overlap in purpose.
Most tools use short English verb or noun phrases (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), but the core domain tool is a long Portuguese phrase (processos_judiciais_simplificada_consultar), breaking the pattern and mixing languages.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but six of them are generic platform utilities rather than specific to judicial processes. The server's stated purpose is only represented by a single domain tool, making the count feel slightly bloated with platform-related tools.
The domain tool provides the core consultation by CPF/CNPJ, which matches the 'simplified' intent. However, there are no additional judicial process operations (e.g., detailed process lookup, history, or documents), but the platform marketplace tool can extend capabilities.