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 and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing the response contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), giving the agent a clear picture of what information the call yields.
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 action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then compactly lists the main data categories. Every clause adds useful information without 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?
For a no-parameter, read-only tool, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and the shape of its return data. It lists four specific aspects of the state, making the output expectations clear even without an output schema.
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 is trivially complete. The description need not explain parameter semantics, and with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 the resource 'current toolkit state' and enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented.
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 a clear use case: when you need to inspect the current toolkit state. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., show_version for version information), so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Several tools overlap: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and marketplace also lists installed tools. authenticate and connect both handle login/credentials, making it difficult to choose the right tool for a given authentication task.
The tool names mix verb-based (authenticate, connect, report_bug), noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese compound (simples_nacional_consultar). There is no consistent naming pattern or language convention across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but several serve overlapping platform-management purposes (connect, toolkit_info, marketplace) and only one tool relates to the nominal domain of Simples Nacional. The count is acceptable, but the set feels padded with utilities that could be consolidated.
The server's main purpose, consulting Simples Nacional, is covered by a single tool with only one operation (simples_nacional_consultar). There is no broader domain coverage (e.g., batch queries, tax statements, or other company data), and the remaining tools are generic platform utilities that don't fill that gap.