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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what state it reports: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then lists the returned details with a colon. Every word contributes useful information 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?
Given the low complexity of a no-parameter read-only status tool and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the exact categories of information returned. It is complete for selection and invocation.
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 and an empty schema, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description appropriately focuses on return content rather than parameters, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.
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' with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This scope clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like connect and 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 the tool is used to inspect overall toolkit status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as show_version, nor does it mention any exclusions. It provides clear context but no alternative guidance.
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.
There is significant overlap: marketplace internally includes report_bug, connection status, and install management, duplicating the dedicated report_bug, connect, and toolkit_info tools. Authenticate and connect are also related to authentication/connection, making boundaries unclear.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), and a long domain-specific snake_case (sefaz_rr_nfce_consultar). This makes the set feel chaotic and unpredictable.
Although 7 tools is a reasonable count, the server is named for SEFAZ NFC-e yet only 1 tool serves that domain. The other 6 are generic platform management tools (auth, connection, marketplace, version) that are out of place in a domain-specific server.
The domain surface is severely incomplete: a single NFC-e consultation tool, with no support for searching, listing, canceling, or other common NFC-e operations. Meanwhile, platform management is over-covered, with multiple overlapping tools and marketplace's broad feature set.