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 established. The description adds concrete behavioral context by specifying exactly what state information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.
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 core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific data points. Every phrase adds information with no filler 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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It enumerates the major components of the returned state (installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result. It does not specify the exact response format or field names, but that is a minor gap for a parameterless read-only status 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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Schema description coverage is effectively 100%, and the description correctly does not invent parameters. Baseline for zero-parameter tools 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the data it covers: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like 'authenticate' 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 implies the tool is for inspecting the current toolkit state, so the use case is inferable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., 'show_version') or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than 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.
The stone_vendas_* tools are clearly separated by data type, but the generic tools are not: connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace all describe connection/installed-tool state, and marketplace even mentions report_bug functionality that is also a standalone tool. Agents could easily pick the wrong meta-tool when checking status or running another MCP.
The Stone tools share a consistent stone_vendas_ prefix, but the rest of the server uses bare English verbs/nouns like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and toolkit_info. Inside the prefix, the names mix verbs like listar and limpar_cache with nouns like arquivo, recebiveis, and resumo, so no single naming pattern governs the set.
15 tools is not extreme, and the nine Stone-specific tools are reasonably scoped. However, six generic MCP.AI/admin tools are unrelated to Stone Vendas and dilute the server's purpose, making the count feel padded.
The Stone domain covers the main reconciliation workflow well: sales, Pix, settlements, receivables, cancellations/chargebacks, account listing, a catch-all daily file, and cache reset. There are minor gaps like a direct single-transaction lookup or an explicit bank-statement reconciliation tool, but core reporting has no dead ends.