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 destructiveHint=false, providing the safety profile. The description adds concrete detail about the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention potential behavior like network calls or data freshness, leaving a small gap.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then efficiently enumerates the components. Every phrase earns its place with no fluff.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns and is operationally complete. It provides all necessary context for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.
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 score is 4. The description needs no parameter-specific semantics because there are no parameters to explain.
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 clear verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource 'current toolkit state' with four distinct data components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.
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 usage for inspecting the toolkit's current state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or list exclusions. The context is strong enough for a state-read tool, yet lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance.
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 are clearly distinct: platform management (connect, authenticate, marketplace, etc.) vs. the single domain query tool. The only potential confusion is between connect and authenticate, but their descriptions clarify the different steps.
Naming is inconsistent: mixed languages (English vs. Portuguese), mixed styles (single-word verbs like 'connect' vs. underscore-separated 'show_version' vs. the long descriptive 'transparencia_servidores_remuneracao_consultar'), and no clear pattern across all tools.
7 tools is reasonable in absolute terms, but the count is skewed: only one tool actually serves the server's stated 'Remuneração de Servidores' purpose, while the other six are generic platform utilities that feel misplaced in a domain-specific server.
The domain surface is severely incomplete: only a single query (CPF + month/year) is provided, with no other operations like listing, filtering, or retrieving detailed records. The platform tools don't address the remuneration domain.