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 the specific content of the return value (MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent useful expectations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the output verb and resource, followed by a compact list of included details. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or jargon.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys the return contents and purpose. It adequately covers all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 the schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.
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 specifies the exact verb 'Returns' and resource 'current toolkit state', then enumerates the contained information (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect.
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 purpose implies when to use: whenever the agent needs an overview of the toolkit's installed MCPs and their status. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools are for actions rather than state inspection.
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, but `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection/status information, and `marketplace` is an overloaded catch-all covering search, invoke, install, and billing, making its boundaries fuzzy. The detailed descriptions help differentiate, but some confusion is possible.
Tool names are inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), noun-only (marketplace), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese domain-specific name (trf_certidao_consultar). No clear pattern unifies the set, mixing English/Portuguese and different naming conventions.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the set mixes generic platform utilities (authenticate, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) with a single domain-specific tool, making the count feel inflated for the stated purpose of the server (Certidão TRF). The count itself is not extreme, but the inclusion of unrelated infrastructure tools is questionable.
The domain appears to be querying Brazilian federal court certificates, but only one tool (`trf_certidao_consultar`) handles that. There is no way to manage past queries, retrieve documents, list available certificate types, or handle any other part of the certificate lifecycle. The remaining tools are about MCP platform management, not the domain, leaving significant gaps.