Skip to main content
Glama

Restituição IRPF

toolkit_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds valuable context about exactly what information is returned, going beyond the minimal annotation coverage without contradicting it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then enumerates the return contents. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool without ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 correctly focuses on output rather than input, and there is no need to compensate for parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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, listing specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource description that differentiates it from sibling tools like show_version or marketplace.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for inspecting toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct: restituicao_irpf_consultar is the only domain-specific tool, and the platform utilities (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) each serve a unique purpose. However, authenticate and connect both relate to connection/auth status, creating slight overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow no single convention: some are verbs (connect, authenticate, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses Portuguese snake_case (restituicao_irpf_consultar). The mixed styles are readable but inconsistent.

Tool Count4/5

With 7 tools, the count is reasonable and falls within the ideal range. However, most tools are generic platform utilities that could arguably be separated from the domain-specific IRPF service, but the total is still well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The core domain operation—consulting an IRPF refund status—is fully covered by restituicao_irpf_consultar. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no batch query or history retrieval), but the essential use case is complete. The platform tools add ecosystem coverage.