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 provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about what data is returned (state details), which aligns with the read-only nature. No side effects are expected, and no contradiction exists.
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 action ('Returns') and then enumerates the returned components. Every word contributes value 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 simple read-only informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by listing what the state includes. It does not define the exact return format, but that level of detail may not be necessary for this simple tool.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter details.
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 ('current toolkit state'). It enumerates exactly what is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which differentiates 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 implies usage: the tool is for querying toolkit state. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not fully developed.
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: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version info, toolkit info, and the sanctions lookup. Minor overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info, both providing connection/status information, which could cause confusion.
Naming is inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace) mix with underscore-separated phrases (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, sancoes_ue_consultar). There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, and the domain-specific tool uses a noun-first structure differing from the others.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the server is named for EU sanctions while six of the seven tools are generic MCP platform utilities. This makes the count feel bloated relative to the apparent domain focus, though not excessive in absolute terms.
For an EU sanctions server, only one tool (sancoes_ue_consultar) addresses the domain. There are no additional query methods, list endpoints, or update capabilities, leaving the domain coverage very thin. The other tools are unrelated to sanctions and do not fill this gap.