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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what the returned state includes, which goes beyond the annotations and leaves no surprise about the tool's role.
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 front-loads the core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the included elements in a convenient colon list. 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.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the scope and contents of the returned state. It does not explain the exact output format, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity.
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 per the rubric. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps, and it adds no parameter-related information because none exist. No deduction needed.
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 clearly identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', then enumerates the exact content: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is highly specific and inherently distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version 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 implies usage for inspecting overall toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations. For a simple read-only query, the context is clear enough, but guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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.
Authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info overlap on auth/connection status, and marketplace is a sprawling multi-action tool. However, the descriptions are detailed enough to help an agent distinguish them most of the time.
Naming is inconsistent: single-word tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace mix with snake_case verbs like report_bug and show_version, plus the domain-specific sancoes_onu_consultar. There is no uniform verb_noun pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the server's name suggests a sanctions domain while only one tool is sanctions-specific. The rest are generic MCP platform utilities, making the set feel padded and off-purpose.
The sanctions surface is just a single lookup tool with no additional operations like listing filters or batch queries. The other six tools serve platform management, leaving the domain coverage minimal and the server's actual purpose unclear.