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 tool is clearly safe. The description enriches this by detailing what data is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, counts), adding behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without any redundancy. It is concise and to the point.
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?
The tool is simple with no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It lists all key fields (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making it complete for the tool's complexity.
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 fully covers parameter semantics. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter info because none is needed. This 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns the current toolkit state with specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or connect.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternative tools. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose, so it lacks explicit direction.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: authenticate handles login, connect reports status, marketplace is the central hub for searching and executing MCPs, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays versions, sintegra_ms_consultar performs a specific data lookup, and toolkit_info summarizes the environment. The only potential overlap is between authenticate and connect, but they are clearly separated by actions (login vs. check status). The marketplace tool is broad but has a well-defined scope, so misselection is unlikely.
Naming is mixed: some tools use verb_noun (show_version, toolkit_info), some are single verbs (authenticate, connect), and marketplace is a noun. Additionally, sintegra_ms_consultar includes a proper name and a Portuguese verb, deviating from the pattern. While all names are readable, the inconsistency is noticeable and could confuse agents expecting a uniform convention.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a platform that combines a marketplace, user management, and a specific data query. The count is not excessive and each tool seems necessary, though the marketplace tool bundles many sub-actions (search, describe, invoke, list, install, subscribe, etc.) into one surface, which might justify a higher count but still remains within a sensible range.
The platform covers core operations: authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery/execution, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. Minor gaps exist, such as a dedicated logout or token revocation function, but the marketplace tool includes billing and subscription management, so most needs are met. The SINTEGRA MS tool is a standalone query, which is complete for its purpose.