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 and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context by detailing exactly what state information is returned. It stops short of describing return format or potential latency, but for a read-only info tool, this is adequate.
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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific items returned. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
This is a simple, no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema. The description enumerates the return content sufficiently for an agent to know what to expect. Sibling tools are distinct enough that no additional exclusion context is required.
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 the schema trivially covers 100% of the parameter space. The description does not introduce any parameter confusion, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, which is appropriate here.
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 defines the resource ('current toolkit state') along with enumerated contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version and marketplace, which have different focuses.
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 this tool is for inspecting the overall toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Sibling differentiation relies on the name and enumerated contents rather than direct 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.
The core consultation tool is distinct, but authenticate and connect overlap somewhat around authentication/connection status, and marketplace is a sprawling tool covering many sub-actions (search, invoke, install, etc.) that overlaps with report_bug and toolkit_info. Detailed descriptions help, but boundaries remain fuzzy.
Tool names mix single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), noun_verb (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), a marketplace noun, and a Portuguese domain name (similaridade_br_consultar). There is no consistent naming convention across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable size, but most tools are generic MCP platform utilities rather than serving the identity similarity purpose. The count itself is fine, though the scope feels a bit unfocused.
The primary operation of querying identity similarity is covered, along with authentication and connection status. Billing and marketplace operations are also present. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit balance/credit check, but these are indirectly handled via marketplace links.