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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by explaining what data the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but it's a simple read-only getter.
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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific contents. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
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 has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient detail about what the tool returns. It covers the key information an agent needs to decide to call this tool and understand its output. No significant gaps.
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 explain parameter semantics, and the schema is empty. No additional parameter context 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 clearly states the tool returns 'the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('toolkit state'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect or 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 implies usage context: use this to inspect toolkit state. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name when-not-to-use, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings. No explicit alternative guidance is provided, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 are clearly distinct: renda_estimada_consultar, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info each have unique purposes. However, authenticate and connect overlap around authentication/connection status, and marketplace and toolkit_info share some visibility into installed tools, causing minor ambiguity.
Tool names are inconsistent: some are English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), some are English nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the sole domain-specific tool is in Portuguese with an awkward noun_noun_verb structure (renda_estimada_consultar). No clear naming pattern emerges.
The count of 7 tools is within a reasonable range, but the server's stated purpose is socioeconomic level and income estimation, while only one tool addresses that domain. The rest are generic platform utilities, making the set feel misaligned and somewhat bloated for the claimed focus.
For a server supposedly dedicated to income estimation, there is only a single 'consult' operation and no supporting tools (e.g., batch lookup, validation, or explanation of data sources). The large number of unrelated utility tools does not compensate for the lack of domain coverage, leaving significant gaps for agents seeking comprehensive socioeconomic data.