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 safety profile is clear. The description adds context about what data is returned, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as caching, recency, or potential delays. Thus it gives some added value but not rich behavioral transparency.
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 lists the exact contents of the response. No filler or repetition exists, making it highly concise and front-loaded.
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?
This tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema) and the description covers all key aspects of what it returns. It adequately explains what the agent can learn from calling this tool, and the sibling list adds context that this is a state-inspection utility.
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 no parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage (100%). According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4; the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the tool 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' and 'authenticate' by focusing on the overall state rather than performing an action.
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 does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like 'connect' or 'show_version'. The intended usage is implied: use this when you need a snapshot of the toolkit's integration state, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.
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.
Tools have clearly distinct purposes: auth, connection status, marketplace operations, data lookup, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. The only slight overlap is between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both reporting connection status, but they serve different contexts.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: mix of bare verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), English verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version), Spanish verb_noun (registro_pf_mx_consultar), and noun_noun (toolkit_info). Also, language is mixed (English vs. Spanish).
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the scope is broad and includes many platform-level utilities alongside a single domain-specific tool. The count itself is appropriate, though the mix feels uneven.
For the stated domain (Mexican PF data), only a single consultation operation exists, which is sufficient for public data lookup but lacks any additional operations. The platform tools (marketplace) provide indirect completeness by enabling other MCPs, but that shifts focus away from the server's primary name.