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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output content context, though it does not disclose whether connection status is live/network-dependent or how fresh the returned state is.
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, front-loaded sentence that enumerates concrete output fields without filler. Every segment adds value: 'installed MCPs', 'connection status', 'accounts connected', and 'how many catalog tools each exposes'.
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 informational tool with strong annotations, this description is complete. It states the purpose and lists all output categories. Although there is no output schema, the enumerated return contents sufficiently cover what the agent needs to know.
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 input schema is empty, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. There is nothing to explain about parameters, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than parameter semantics.
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 names a concrete resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what that includes: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and 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 implies usage for checking overall toolkit status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as show_version or connect. The intended context is reasonably inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-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 have clearly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace, feedback, version, and toolkit info. The only slight overlap is between authenticate and connect, but they serve different functions (login vs. status). The domain-specific consultation tool is unambiguous.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses a long snake_case Portuguese phrase (tribunal_trf3_processo_consultar). This mixed style reduces predictability.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a management toolkit. The set is not bloated, though the inclusion of a single domain-specific tool alongside generic platform utilities makes the overall scope feel slightly unfocused.
For platform management, the tools cover authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, version checks, toolkit state, and bug reporting. This is fairly comprehensive. However, for the apparent tribunal process domain, only one consultation tool exists, indicating a significant gap if that were the intended focus.