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 covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the exact content of the returned state (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotation-provided hints.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and result. Every phrase adds value, with 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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns. Given the simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects) and strong annotation coverage, this is complete and self-sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed because the tool requires no input.
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 identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', listing concrete details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate, 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 usage for inspecting toolkit status, and its contrast with action-oriented siblings is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria, so it falls 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between the marketplace (which can also run CPF/CNPJ queries by invoking external MCPs) and the dedicated sintegra_ccc_completa_consultar tool. Additionally, connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, which may cause mis-selection.
Naming is highly inconsistent: some tools are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), one is a noun (marketplace), others are verb_noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), and the Sintegra tool is a long domain-specific phrase with the verb at the end. There is no discernible pattern across the set.
At 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range. However, the server's name implies a Sintegra-focused tool, while most tools are generic platform features; still, each tool appears to have a distinct function and the count is not excessive.
The core Sintegra consultation is covered by a single comprehensive query tool. Platform-level tools for authentication, connection status, marketplace access, and version reporting round out the surface. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for managing or reviewing past consultations, but these are likely handled through the marketplace.