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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context by enumerating what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), enriching the agent's understanding beyond 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, front-loaded sentence that lists the information returned without redundancy. Every word adds value.
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?
For a simple, zero-parameter info tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making it complete.
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. There is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already provides (an empty schema).
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 specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'current toolkit state' and details the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 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 a clear usage context for retrieving toolkit state, which is sufficient given the tool's read-only nature. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear and no exclusions are needed.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, CPF query, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between any of the tools.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are single verbs (connect, authenticate), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), one is a noun phrase (toolkit_info), and one mixes Portuguese and English in an unusual order (receita_pf_consultar). The lack of a clear pattern hurts predictability.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for this server, which appears to be a general MCP platform toolkit with a single domain-specific CPF query tool. The count is neither too thin nor bloated, though the mix of platform admin tools with one domain tool is slightly unusual.
For a server named 'Receita Federal PF', the only actual domain operation is a single CPF status consultation. There are no other tax-related operations (e.g., CNPJ queries, tax debt checks, or receipt management), leaving significant gaps for anyone expecting a comprehensive Receita Federal integration. The platform admin tools are complete, but they don't fulfill the apparent domain purpose.