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, covering the safety profile. The description adds detail about the output contents but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as latency, errors, or permissions. This meets the baseline for annotation-covered tools.
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 efficiently packs five distinct data points (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts) without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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?
For a parameterless, read-only introspection tool, the description is complete. It compensates for the absence of an output schema by listing exactly what will be returned. Annotations cover safety, so no critical information is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially), so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids adding parameter information that would be meaningless, providing no unnecessary noise.
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 identifies a clear resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or connect, which address different concerns.
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 provides clear context about what information is returned, so an agent can infer when to call it (e.g., to check connection status or account bindings). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but that is not necessary for a simple state-getter tool.
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.
Tools have distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state, and a specific domain query. Some minor overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info (both report connection status), but generally an agent can choose correctly.
Naming is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is Portuguese with the verb at the end (trabalho_forcado_consultar). There is no uniform pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server's name suggests a domain-specific scope (forced labor list), and six of the seven tools are generic platform utilities. The count feels imbalanced—too many meta-tools and too few domain tools relative to the apparent purpose.
The platform side is fairly complete (auth, status, marketplace, bug reporting, version, toolkit state), but the domain side is extremely thin: a single query tool for the dirty list, with no other operations like listing, batch checks, or historical data. For a server named after the domain, this is a significant gap.