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 provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds concrete behavioral details by listing the exact output components (MCPs, statuses, connected accounts, catalog counts). This goes beyond mere safety semantics, offering a picture of what the caller will receive. No contradiction with 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 sentence that is direct and information-dense. Every clause adds meaningful content and there is no redundancy or wordiness. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action 'Returns the current toolkit state' followed by specifics.
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?
This is a simple zero-parameter info tool without an output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does list the main components of the return (installations, statuses, accounts, counts), which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It doesn't specify the exact data structure or pagination/error behavior, but for the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably complete.
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 and the description has no parameter semantics to explain. It correctly omits any param details because there are none. The schema coverage is 100% (empty object), so no additional value needed.
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 it 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.
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 gives a clear context of what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like show_version or market_state. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.
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 marketplace tool is a single tool that combines search, execution, installation, billing, and prompt management, creating a broad, ambiguous interface. connect, authenticate, and toolkit_info all relate to connection or status, with overlapping purposes. Only tcu_consolidada_pj_consultar is clearly distinct.
Tool names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb-noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), with the domain-specific tool using a long snake_case phrase. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Seven tools is within the typical 3-15 range, but six of them are generic platform management utilities, while only one addresses the server's named TCU purpose. The count is reasonable for a general MCP platform but mismatched for a TCU-specific server.
For the TCU domain, only a single query operation exists, with no additional lookups or related actions. The platform side is more complete, but the server's core stated purpose—TCU consolidated data—has minimal coverage, leaving agents without fallback or complementary operations.