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 and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds value by specifying exactly what kind of state it returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which is relevant behavioral context 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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the contents in a compact, readable list. No wasted words.
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 state-inspection tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains what the agent will receive (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts), making it complete for its complexity. The sibling context also confirms it is distinct from action-oriented tools.
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 parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', then enumerates the exact components (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented.
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 when to use this tool—whenever an agent needs to inspect the toolkit's state (installed MCPs, connections, accounts). However, it does not explicitly rule out alternatives or mention exclusions, so it stops 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 tools serve mostly distinct purposes, but the marketplace tool is a broad catch-all that overlaps with the domain tool (can search for CPF-related MCPs) and includes many sub-actions. Additionally, connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, creating some ambiguity. Detailed descriptions help, but selection risk remains.
Tool names are all lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace), and only a few follow a verb_noun style. The domain-specific tool uses a different convention (tj_certidao_consultar). This mixed naming makes it hard to predict tool behavior from names alone.
The 7-tool count is within a reasonable range, but the server is named for a specific domain (TJ certificates) yet devotes 6 of 7 tools to generic platform management. This creates a scope mismatch where the domain surface is a single tool and the platform tools feel out of place, though the number itself is not excessive.
The only domain tool covers the core consult operation, but there are no other certidão-related tools (e.g., list past requests, check status, or generate a specific variant). The platform tools do not address the domain's completeness, leaving significant gaps for typical certificate workflows.