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, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful detail about what state is returned, such as installed MCPs and account connections, which helps the agent understand the tool's output beyond the safety profile.
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 entire description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and immediately lists the returned state components. No wasteful words or redundancy with the schema.
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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent will receive: installed MCPs, status, accounts, and tool counts. Nothing essential is missing given the tool's simplicity.
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 schema provides complete coverage with an empty object. Baseline per rules is 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't, keeping the focus on return contents.
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' and names the resource 'current toolkit state', enumerating installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect and authenticate which perform actions rather than report state.
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 is for inspecting toolkit state when needed, listing exactly what information is included. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but for a zero-parameter info tool, the context is clear and no competing sibling serves the same purpose.
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/state information, and 'authenticate' overlaps with 'connect' around authentication. The single domain-specific tool 'similaridade_mx_consultar' stands apart, but the platform tools could still confuse an agent.
Naming is mixed: bare verbs ('authenticate', 'connect'), nouns ('marketplace', 'toolkit_info'), verb_noun compounds ('report_bug', 'show_version'), and a Portuguese phrase ('similaridade_mx_consultar'). No consistent convention across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server's stated purpose (identity similarity in México) is served by only one tool; the rest are generic platform helpers. This makes the count feel mismatched to the domain, though not excessive.
The platform utilities cover authentication, state, marketplace, and feedback adequately. However, the domain-specific 'consultar' tool is a single query with no additional operations like history, batch, or validation, leaving gaps for a comprehensive identity-similarity service.