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 read-only nature is established. The description adds specific detail about what state is returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the 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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific data included. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns with its list of four data categories. It does not describe the exact structure or format, but that is likely acceptable for a simple, no-parameter introspection tool.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100% and the description adds no parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies, as no parameter explanation is needed for a no-parameter tool.
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'), then enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, 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 usage when the toolkit state is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_version. There are no direct comparisons or exclusions, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.
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.
Connect and toolkit_info both report connection status and installed MCPs, creating ambiguity. Authenticate and connect also overlap in the authentication flow, while marketplace's list_tools further duplicates toolkit introspection.
Names mix English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with a Portuguese verb (sintegra_consultar) and nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), showing no consistent pattern or language.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but six are generic MCP platform utilities unrelated to Sintegra. Only one tool serves the stated domain, making the set feel padded with irrelevant meta-tools.
For the Sintegra domain, only a single query tool exists, lacking any additional operations like listing supported states or verifying service status. The platform utilities do not contribute to domain coverage, leaving the surface thin.