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 clear. The description adds the return content but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as latency, caching, or potential variability in connection status accuracy. No contradiction with annotations.
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, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and specifies the output components. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
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 tool with no parameters and a clear output description, the description is complete. It fully describes what is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is sufficient given the lack of output schema and low complexity. Annotations cover the safety context, so no additional information is necessary.
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 schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to explain parameters because there are none, and it adds no extra semantics that would warrant a 5.
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' and enumerates the specific contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling action-oriented tools like authenticate or connect.
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—call this to inspect toolkit state—but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like authenticate or connect have different purposes, but no direct comparison or 'instead of' guidance is given.
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 clear purposes, but 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection status, and 'marketplace' subsumes listing tools which overlaps with 'toolkit_info'. These overlapping responsibilities could cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
Tool names are inconsistent: some are bare verbs (connect, authenticate), some use verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), some are noun phrases (toolkit_info, marketplace), and one is a long Portuguese phrase (similaridade_ar_consultar). No coherent pattern.
7 tools is a reasonable count, but the set mixes generic platform management (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) with a single domain-specific query tool, which makes it feel slightly over-scoped for the apparent purpose of identity similarity.
The platform side covers auth, status, marketplace search/invoke, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state, so it is fairly complete. The domain side has only a consult operation, but that matches the simple query nature of the service, so no major gaps.