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 idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing exactly what state is reported (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), giving the agent a clear picture of the returned data without needing an output schema.
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 is front-loaded with the main action and then lists specific content elements. No wasted words or redundancy.
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, parameterless info tool with rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns in sufficient detail, covering the main areas an agent would need to know, and there are no hidden behaviors or complex interactions to disclose.
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 baseline is 4; there is nothing to explain about input semantics. The description correctly focuses on the output instead. No additional parameter information is needed.
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') with enumerated details (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, 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 clearly implies when to use this tool (whenever you need an overview of the toolkit state). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tools have distinct functions. A brief note on when not to use it would elevate this to a 5.
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: authentication, connection status, marketplace catalog/execution, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state, and the data query. There is no overlap even though marketplace is complex; it is still separate from the others.
Naming conventions are mixed: English verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and a long Portuguese name (transparencia_servidores_consultar). No consistent pattern.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range for a server that includes platform infrastructure plus a data tool. The count is not excessive, though several tools are generic platform utilities rather than domain-specific.
The domain appears to be federal employee transparency data, but only one query tool exists (by CPF). Missing other obvious query types such as by name, agency, or a listing endpoint. The platform tools are complete for their purpose but don't contribute to domain coverage.