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, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format or potential latency. This is consistent with the mid-tier example where annotations carry the safety burden.
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 primary action ('Returns') and efficiently lists the returned components without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise.
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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned, covering all mentioned aspects of the toolkit state. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected output without additional clarification.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, meaning the schema fully documents the empty input. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there is nothing to add. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate, 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 implicitly signals usage when one needs an overview of the toolkit's connections and tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_version or marketplace. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so usage guidance remains implied.
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 embeds sub-actions (report_bug, list_tools) that duplicate standalone tools. Agents may struggle to choose the right tool.
All names use snake_case, but the style is mixed: some are verbs (authenticate, connect, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool stm_certidao_consultar reverses the noun-verb order. This inconsistency makes the set less predictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the 'Certidão STM' purpose. The set feels bloated for a server whose name suggests a narrow domain, with only one tool actually serving that domain.
For the named domain, only a single consult operation exists—no history, reprint, or status features. The platform tools cover a different domain entirely, leaving the certidão functionality with significant gaps if that is the server's intended focus.