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 safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the exact content returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which helps the agent understand what information is available.
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 purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the key details. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), strong annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It provides enough detail for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect in the response.
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 vacuously documents 100% of parameters. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4. No additional parameter guidance is required.
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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is more specific than the generic tool name and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 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 makes it clear when to use this tool: when you need the current toolkit state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and no conflicting tool is described nearby.
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, but `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection status, which could cause confusion. The domain tool `registro_pf_ar_consultar` is clearly unique.
Names mix single verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), a noun (`marketplace`), and compound forms (`report_bug`, `show_version`), plus an inconsistent underscore-heavy domain name (`registro_pf_ar_consultar`). No clear naming pattern.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, and the platform utilities earn their place alongside the single domain operation. The count is slightly high for such a narrow domain, but not excessive.
The domain surface is severely limited: only `registro_pf_ar_consultar` provides the core data lookup, with no other domain-related operations (e.g., different lookup keys, batch queries, or data explanations). The platform utilities are complete, but the server's stated purpose is the Argentina PF data, which is under-served.