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 context about what data the tool returns, which is useful, but it doesn't describe any deeper behavioral traits such as freshness, permission requirements, or network implications.
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, tightly scoped sentence listing the return contents in a readable order. Every phrase adds information and there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
This is a simple, zero-parameter, read-only inspection tool, and the description covers the essential return categories. It does not specify the exact output structure or possible error conditions, but for a toolkit status utility, the description is sufficiently complete to guide correct use.
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 supplies full coverage of that fact. With no parameters, the description's job is simply to frame what the tool returns, which it does clearly. Therefore, the baseline of 4 applies.
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?
Description starts with 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') plus specific elements included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a precise verb+resource statement and naturally distinguishes the tool from siblings like show_version or connect, which have narrower 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 implies usage through its content: if you need to inspect the toolkit state, this is the tool to call. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, so it stays at the 'implied usage' level rather than offering clear 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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: authenticate handles login, connect checks status, marketplace manages MCP discovery/invocation, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays versions, toolkit_info describes installed MCPs, and the tribunal tool queries process data. No two tools overlap in functionality, so misselection is unlikely.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some snake_case verb_noun (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and the domain tool is a long, fully descriptive name (tribunal_trf6_processo_consultar) that breaks from the others entirely.
While 7 total tools is a reasonable number, the apparent scope is a domain-specific tribunal process server, yet 6 of the 7 tools are generic MCP platform utilities. This leaves only one tool actually serving the domain, which feels too thin and misaligned with the server's stated purpose.
For a tribunal process server, the only operation is a generic consult (tribunal_trf6_processo_consultar). There are no tools for searching by case number, listing processes, or retrieving detailed case information. The platform tools don't address the domain, leaving significant gaps that would require workarounds or manual user intervention.