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, which covers the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by specifying exactly what data is returned, including connection status and account linkage. This goes beyond just restating the annotations and clarifies the tool's behavior as a read-only state inspection.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then uses a colon to efficiently enumerate the four data categories. Every word adds value with no fluff or repetition.
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 simplicity (no params, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns in sufficient detail for an agent to identify when this tool is the right choice. The only gap is the lack of explicit usage instructions or edge cases, but for a simple status tool this is a minor omission.
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 schema description coverage is 100% by definition. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it does implicitly communicate that no input is required, which is helpful. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.
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: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or transparencia_servidores_completa_consultar by focusing on the overall toolkit state rather than individual servers.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention situations where it would be appropriate or inappropriate to call, nor does it reference sibling tools. The existence of siblings like show_version suggests potential overlap, but the description doesn't address this.
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.
Several tools have overlapping responsibilities: 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both return connection/status info, 'authenticate' handles session/auth concerns, and 'marketplace' bundles numerous actions (including install, subscribe, cancel, report_bug) that duplicate capabilities of 'report_bug' and other tools. Agents would struggle to choose the right tool without examining internal action parameters.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are bare verbs ('authenticate', 'connect'), some are verb_noun ('report_bug', 'show_version'), one is a noun ('marketplace'), and the domain-specific tool uses a long Portuguese composite ('transparencia_servidores_completa_consultar'). The mix of English platform verbs and a Portuguese domain name adds inconsistency.
Seven tools is within an acceptable range, but the 'marketplace' tool is a monolithic catch-all containing search, describe, invoke, install, list, subscribe, cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt management, effectively representing 12+ operations under one tool. This makes the actual surface area much larger than the count suggests, though the number itself is reasonable.
The server's stated purpose is federal employee transparency, but only a single CPF query tool is provided, with no listing, filtering, or batch operations. The platform admin tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are comprehensive, but they don't cover the transparency domain, which appears to be the server's primary focus. Many common transparency needs remain unsupported.