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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying what data is returned (connection status, accounts, tool counts), which clarifies the tool's behavior without contradicting 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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a compact list of return details. No redundancy or filler, 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 tool has no parameters and strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It enumerates the main return items (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts), so even without an output schema, the agent understands what to expect.
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, and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, as there are none, so the baseline of 4 applies.
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 defines the resource (toolkit state) with enumerated details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and show_version, 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 implies use when needing an overview of toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools like show_version might seem similar, but no direct comparison is given.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authenticate handles login, connect reports connection status, marketplace manages MCP discovery/execution, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays version, toolkit_info shows installed state, and the last performs the actual transparency query. No two tools overlap in function.
Naming is inconsistent: English platform tools use short verbs/nouns (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), while the sole domain tool is a long Portuguese phrase (transparencia_indicadores_pj_consultar). The verb is at the end and the language differs, breaking any predictable pattern.
Seven tools is within a typical range, but the count is skewed: six are generic platform utilities and only one serves the server's stated purpose (PJ indicators). The composition feels unbalanced, though not extreme in either direction.
The domain surface is minimal—only a single consult operation for CNPJ indicators. There are no discovery or metadata tools (e.g., listing available indicators or describing fields), which limits agent flexibility. The platform tools cover their own lifecycle, but the transparency domain itself lacks depth.