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 readOnly=true, destructive=false, and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context about the specific data returned (MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations. No contradictions.
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 states the action and enumerates the returned items. Every word adds value, with no fluff 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 no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns, covering the key dimensions of toolkit state. For a simple read-only informational tool, this is complete and sufficient.
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 them (trivially). According to the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't.
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: returning the toolkit state with specific items (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like show_version (version info) and authenticate/connect (actions) by focusing on the overall state snapshot.
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 implicitly conveys when to use it: when you need an overview of the current toolkit installation and connectivity. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an informational tool, and it doesn't mislead.
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 target obvious separate concerns, but marketplace is a mega-tool that bundles actions like report_bug, list_tools, install, and prompt management, while report_bug and toolkit_info also exist separately. This creates real overlap and requires careful reading to pick the right entry point.
All names use lowercase snake_case, which helps, but the semantic pattern is inconsistent: authenticate and connect are bare verbs, report_bug and show_version are verb+noun, marketplace and toolkit_info are noun-like, and sintegra_mt_consultar is a Portuguese object+verb construction. The names are readable but do not suggest one predictable convention.
Seven tools is a reasonable, non-bloated count for an MCP server. However, the marketplace tool contains a large number of sub-operations and effectively acts as many tools in one, while report_bug appears both separately and inside marketplace, so the surface is less clean than the raw count suggests.
The main lifecycle is covered: authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery/invoke/install, toolkit state, versioning, feedback, and the Sintegra-MT query itself. For a read-only data consultation, full CRUD is not expected; missing dedicated wallet-balance/top-up and disconnect/deauth tools are notable but workable via marketplace links.