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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the exact information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful for an agent deciding to call it. No contradictions 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, well-structured sentence that lists all key output components without filler. Every phrase adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the verb 'Returns'.
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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully specifies what the tool returns, making it complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output. No additional context is necessary.
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 the input schema fully covers this aspect. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It appropriately focuses on the return content instead.
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 lists precise content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This 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 implies the tool is for retrieving toolkit state, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The usage context is clear but only implied, not explicitly stated.
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 set mixes platform/admin tools (authenticate, connect, toolkit_info) and a single domain tool (tj_processos_consultar). Some overlap exists between connect/authenticate and marketplace/toolkit_info, but detailed descriptions help distinguish them.
Names follow no consistent convention: English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), a noun (marketplace), a noun phrase (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese verb phrase (tj_processos_consultar) are all mixed together, making discovery less predictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but six are generic MCP platform utilities while only one directly serves the 'Processos TJ' purpose, creating a scope mismatch.
The domain coverage is limited to a single consultation tool that supports multiple query parameters, but lacks follow-up operations such as process tracking or detailed case retrieval. The remaining tools are unrelated to legal processes.