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 covered. The description goes beyond annotations by specifying exactly what data is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts), providing valuable context. No contradictions found.
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, tightly worded sentence that directly states the output. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with 'Returns' and immediately lists the key deliverables.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description provides a complete picture. It explains the exact nature of the returned state, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. No further elaboration is necessary.
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. The description doesn't need to add parameter details because there are none. The schema is empty and the description complements it perfectly by explaining what the call will return.
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 with specific content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This verb+resource combination is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' or 'marketplace' which have narrower scopes.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (to inspect overall toolkit state), but it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions. Since the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings, the lack of explicit 'use instead of X' is acceptable.
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.
The set mixes one domain-specific tool with several overlapping platform utilities. marketplace duplicates report_bug, while connect, authenticate, and toolkit_info all touch connection/auth status, making it unclear which tool an agent should call first.
Names are readable and all lowercase snake_case, but they do not follow one pattern: authenticate and connect are bare verbs, marketplace and toolkit_info are nouns, and removebg_remove is a brand-style imperative. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
Seven tools is a reasonable raw count, but the server's scope is unfocused: only one tool actually performs the 'Remover Fundo' domain work, while the rest are platform meta-tools, and marketplace alone bundles many subactions. It is slightly more than needed for the stated purpose.
The core background-removal flow works for URL-hosted images with basic options, but the server lacks local-file input, batch processing, richer output controls, and a clear remove.bg-specific configuration surface. The platform side is fairly complete, but the domain side has notable gaps.