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 non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by enumerating exactly what state information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the generic annotation hints.
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 opens with the action ('Returns') and packs all key information into a readable list. Every word contributes; there is 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?
For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the tool returns a state snapshot with the specified components. It leaves no critical gaps for invocation or expectation-setting.
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 there are no parameter semantics to convey. The baseline of 4 applies because the description provides full clarity about the tool's input requirements (none) without needing any parameter documentation.
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 defines the resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerable details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or show_version, which serve different purposes.
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 purpose is so self-evident that usage is clear: use this tool when needing an overview of the toolkit's state. While it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, the context is unambiguous and there is no overlapping sibling tool.
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.
Several tools overlap: 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection status; 'authenticate' and 'connect' handle related auth/connection flows; 'report_bug' duplicates an action embedded in 'marketplace'. These overlapping boundaries make tool selection ambiguous.
Names follow no consistent pattern: single words ('connect', 'marketplace'), snake_case verb nouns ('report_bug', 'show_version'), noun-only ('toolkit_info'), and a Portuguese phrase ('registro_pf_br_consultar'). The mixed conventions are hard to predict.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but most are generic platform utilities (auth, version, reporting) tangential to the server's indicated purpose of Brazilian CPF data. The single domain tool feels out of place, so the count is neither too high nor too low but the scope is unfocused.
For a server dedicated to 'Dados Cadastrais PF', only one query operation exists (registro_pf_br_consultar). There are no additional lookup variants, no historical queries, and no supporting data operations. The rest of the tools address platform management, not the domain, leaving the core purpose severely incomplete.