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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the output content (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, counts), but does not mention potential caveats like whether the data is cached, whether authentication is required, or if there are any rate limits. This is consistent with annotations and provides some extra context.
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 exactly what the tool returns. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, comprehensive annotations), the description fully specifies the return content. It leaves no ambiguity about what information is provided, and annotations cover behavioral safety. The sibling tools do not reveal any missing contextual aspects.
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 accepts zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-param tools; no parameter documentation is needed beyond the schema.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' and details the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating four concrete components: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly sets it apart from action-oriented siblings like authenticate/connect and the more generic 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 read-only status-reporting purpose is implied, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as show_version or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving usage cues to the agent's inference.
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 marketplace tool is a catch-all that overlaps with report_bug (which it also mentions it can do), connect, and toolkit_info in terms of status and management. The single domain-specific tool, sancoes_canada_consultar, is clearly distinct from the platform utilities, but the utility tools have unclear boundaries among themselves.
Names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and snake_case (report_bug, show_version, sancoes_canada_consultar). The Portuguese domain tool breaks the otherwise English naming convention, and there is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but six are generic platform utilities (auth, connection, marketplace, bug reporting, version, state) while only one serves the Canada sanctions domain. The scope feels split between a platform admin toolkit and a specific data service, making the count less coherent for the server's stated purpose.
The domain surface is extremely thin: only a single lookup operation for Canada sanctions, with no additional query types, listing options, or batch operations. The other tools address platform lifecycle, not the sanctions domain, leaving obvious gaps for a compliance-focused server (e.g., different sanction lists, detailed results, watchlists).