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. The description adds useful context by breaking down exactly what 'toolkit state' includes, which aligns with the safety profile and provides value beyond the annotations.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state'), and each clause adds specific, non-redundant detail. No wasted words.
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 zero-parameter, read-only info tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It explicitly enumerates the returned components and requires no further clarification.
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 is nothing to explain. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details, as none exist.
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 specifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact information included: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does; there is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this info would be relevant.
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 have distinct purposes, but authenticate and connect both deal with connection/auth, and marketplace overlaps with toolkit_info in describing the toolkit state. The descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate in most cases.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), one is a compound (toolkit_info), and the domain tool follows a different pattern (sancoes_australia_consultar). No consistent convention.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range. However, the server is ostensibly about Australian sanctions, yet only one tool is domain-specific; the rest are platform utilities, making the overall scope feel a bit unfocused but not excessive.
The only domain-specific tool is a single lookup for sanctions. There is no batch query, history, or other sanctions-related operations, but for a simple compliance check, it may suffice. The platform tools cover connection and lifecycle needs, so no obvious dead ends.