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. The description adds valuable context by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), enriching the behavioral understanding beyond 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 filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It lists the key components of the toolkit state, making it complete for an AI agent to use correctly.
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 there is no need for parameter-level detail. The schema coverage is trivially 100% with an empty object, and the description correctly focuses on the return value rather than inputs.
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 clearly specifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which serve different purposes.
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 clearly implies this is the tool for inspecting toolkit state, and the sibling tool names show no overlap. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions, so it falls short of full guidance.
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 catch-all that subsumes many operations (search, invoke, install, report bug, prompts), creating overlap with the standalone report_bug tool and making it unclear when to use which. authenticate and connect both deal with authentication/connection status, causing potential selection confusion.
Tool names exhibit no consistent pattern: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some verb-noun (report_bug, show_version), some nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a Portuguese phrase (tcu_inidoneo_consultar). The mix of languages and conventions makes the set feel chaotic.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range and each has a distinct surface area, though the marketplace tool is extremely overloaded with functionality. The count itself is appropriate for a platform server, but the heavy concentration of capabilities in one tool reduces the effective granularity.
The core domain operation (tcu_inidoneo_consultar) is present, and the platform tools cover authentication, connection status, bug reporting, and version info. However, the server's stated purpose is TCU-related, yet most tools are generic platform utilities, leaving the domain surface thin. Missing operations like listing prior consultations or managing query history are not covered.