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, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about what specific state is returned (MCPs, connection statuses, accounts, tool counts), enriching the behavior beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core action and then compactly lists the key contents of the state. Every word earns its place; no filler.
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 read-only informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description completely specifies what the agent can expect. Combined with the annotations, no critical information is missing.
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 schema provides no parameter details. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4; the description appropriately explains what the tool returns, making parameter semantics non-applicable and fully covered.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with a detailed enumeration of contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs to inspect the toolkit's current state, including installed MCPs and their connections. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a stateless, read-only info tool this context is sufficient.
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 (auth, status, version, bug reporting) and the sole domain tool is clearly separated. However, connect and toolkit_info both expose connection status, and marketplace is a broad catch-all, creating minor overlap.
Naming is inconsistent: verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese object-verb order (receita_pj_consultar) are mixed without a clear pattern. While style is all lowercase with underscores, the convention is not predictable.
At 7 tools the count is within a reasonable range, but six of the seven are platform meta-tools unrelated to the Receita Federal domain suggested by the server name. This dilutes the tool set's purpose and makes it feel cluttered.
The core CNPJ consultation is covered with optional shareholder data, which is appropriate for a public-data lookup. There are no obvious lifecycle gaps since the operation is read-only, though search or batch capabilities are missing directly but could be discovered via the marketplace tool.