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, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context by detailing exactly what state is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the annotation metadata.
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 purpose and uses a compact list to convey all key return elements. Every word contributes value; 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 has no input schema, no output schema, and only annotations, the description fully specifies what the agent can expect from the call (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog counts). This is complete for a read-only state-inspection 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 baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns, which is the most relevant semantic information for an agent invoking it.
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 clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state, enumerating specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). It is distinct from siblings like show_version, which focuses on version info, and marketplace, which likely handles discovery.
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 gives clear context that this is a state-inspection tool, implying it should be used when an overview of MCP connections and catalog counts is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but sibling tool names and the descriptive content make its niche reasonably clear.
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.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection status, and `marketplace` duplicates `report_bug` and includes list/status capabilities that overlap with both. The monolithic `marketplace` tool makes it hard for an agent to decide whether to call it directly or use the more specific tools.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: simple verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), verb_noun (`report_bug`, `show_version`), a bare noun (`marketplace`), a long snake_case domain name (`scr_bacen_detalhado_consultar`), and a noun phrase (`toolkit_info`). The mixed conventions and variable lengths make the set feel ad hoc.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range and not overwhelming. However, only one tool maps to the server's stated SCR domain; the rest are generic platform utilities. While each earns a place, the count feels slightly disproportionate for a server whose name suggests a focused SCR service.
The core SCR detail consultation is fully covered by the single domain tool, and platform-level tools handle authentication, connection status, bug reporting, versioning, and toolkit state. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated tool to list available reference months), but there are no dead ends for the primary workflows.