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 meaningful context beyond those annotations by detailing the exact contents of the returned state (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts). No side effects are disclosed, but none are expected given the read-only and idempotent hints.
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 details. Every word earns its place; there is 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description provides a complete picture of what the tool does and what it returns. It lists all relevant output categories and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's behavior.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema confirms there are none. No additional parameter semantics are 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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (version info) and authenticate (auth flow).
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 states what the tool returns but does not explicitly say when to use it or contrast it with alternatives. Usage context is implied—use when you need toolkit state—but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling might be more appropriate for specific scenarios.
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 tools are mostly distinct: authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, and the sanctions lookup each serve different purposes. However, connect and toolkit_info both provide status-related information, which could cause minor confusion.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use lowercase English words with varied patterns (single verbs, noun, verb_noun), while the sanctions tool uses Portuguese with an underscore-separated phrase. No consistent verb_noun or camelCase pattern exists.
With 7 tools, the count is within the typical reasonable range. The platform management tools are appropriate for a marketplace/infrastructure server, though only one domain-specific tool is present given the server's name.
The platform management capabilities (auth, connection, marketplace, introspection) are fairly complete, but the sanctions-specific functionality is extremely limited — only a single consult tool, with no additional operations like batch lookup, list sanctions, or detailed reporting.