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 known. The description adds meaningful context about what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), going beyond the annotation coverage without contradicting it.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists specifics without redundancy. Every part earns its place.
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 simple, no-parameter, read-only info tool, the description is fully adequate. It enumerates the key contents of the return value, and annotations cover safety and idempotency, making the description complete in context.
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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description naturally does not need to add parameter details.
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 identifies the tool's function with the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'current toolkit state'. It enumerates specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, count of catalog tools), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or authenticate.
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 checking toolkit status but does not explicitly state when to use it or contrast it with alternatives. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of alternatives, but the read-only info nature is implied.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, connect reports connection status, marketplace is a broad catalog/invoke hub, and the rest are utility functions. However, marketplace is overloaded and could be confused with toolkit_info or connect for status queries, and authenticate/connect overlap slightly.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single-word verbs (connect, marketplace, authenticate) mix with verb_noun underscores (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) and one long domain-specific name (transparencia_indicadores_pf_consultar) that breaks the style entirely.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the set is dominated by generic platform-management utilities, with only one domain-specific tool. For a server named 'Indicadores PF', the ratio feels disproportionate and many tools seem unrelated to the server's stated purpose.
The domain surface is severely thin: only a single consult operation for PF indicators, with no way to list available indicators, review history, or perform other related tasks. The platform tools don't contribute to domain coverage, leaving the set incomplete for its apparent purpose.