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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about what state is returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the annotations. No additional behavioral notes (e.g., latency, side effects) are needed for a read-only info tool.
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 leads with the action and then lists the specific data points. Every phrase contributes meaningful information—no filler, tautology, or 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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does so completely by listing the four categories of state information. This is fully adequate for an agent to decide when to invoke the tool and what to expect.
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 description has no obligation to explain parameters. The baseline for parameterless tools is 4; the description adequately addresses what the tool does without any parameter information.
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 names the exact resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and number of catalog tools. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (which likely reports version) and connect/authenticate (which perform actions).
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 makes the tool's context obvious: it provides a state snapshot. It does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions. However, the enumerated contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts) implicitly signal that this is the go-to tool for assessing toolkit health or availability, which is sufficient given the sibling set.
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 clearly distinct purposes: authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, scr_bacen_consultar, show_version, and toolkit_info are each identifiable. However, the marketplace tool bundles many sub-actions (including report_bug, install, list_tools) that overlap with dedicated tools like report_bug and toolkit_info, creating potential confusion.
Naming conventions are mixed: English imperatives (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), noun-based names (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese verb phrase (scr_bacen_consultar). This lacks a consistent verb_noun or uniform pattern, making the set feel cobbled together.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a server, but several tools (show_version, toolkit_info, connect) are platform-level utilities rather than domain-specific, slightly diluting the focus on SCR consultation. Still, each tool appears to serve a purpose, so the count is acceptable.
The server's stated domain is SCR (Banco Central credit information), yet only one tool (scr_bacen_consultar) addresses that domain, offering a single query operation. There are no additional tools for historical data, batch processing, or output formatting. While the marketplace can compensate by invoking other MCPs, the core domain surface is severely minimal.