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 need not restate safety. It adds concrete behavioral detail by specifying exactly what data is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotation coverage and helps the agent set expectations.
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, information-dense sentence that starts with the action verb 'Returns' and immediately specifies the outputs. No redundant words or repetition.
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 (no params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what an agent needs to know for selection: what the tool returns. It lists the major categories of information, though it could potentially detail the structure of the returned data, which is not necessary for basic usage.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.
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 specifies the resource 'current toolkit state', enumerating its components: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that perform actions like 'authenticate', 'connect', or 'show_version'.
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 the tool is for querying overall toolkit state without explicit when-to-use or alternative exclusions. While it doesn't explicitly compare against siblings like 'show_version', the clear listing of returned data gives the agent enough context to know when to select it, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.
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 clearly distinct purposes, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, causing slight overlap. The domain-specific protestos_sp_consultar is unique and well-separated from the platform utilities.
Naming is inconsistent: one-word verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), an English verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), a noun_noun (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese compound (protestos_sp_consultar). No unifying pattern is evident.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the server name suggests a specialized domain while only one tool is domain-specific. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the composition feel unbalanced for the stated theme.
The domain tool provides the core query capability, and the marketplace tool enables discovery and invocation of additional MCPs, covering many potential gaps. However, the domain-specific surface itself is minimal with no supplementary operations like reporting or export.