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 well covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by detailing what the returned state includes, which is especially valuable since no output schema is present.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then uses a colon followed by a compact enumeration. Every element earns its place with 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only info tool with rich annotations, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool returns despite lacking an output schema, and no additional behavioral or error details are essential for this simple operation.
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 input schema is empty and there are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly needs no parameter explanations because no parameters exist.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') while enumerating the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, which is version-focused.
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 this tool is for inspecting overall toolkit state, which provides enough context for when to call it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear and no exclusions are needed.
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 clearly distinct purpose: auth, connection status, marketplace, bug reporting, version, toolkit info, and the domain-specific process query. No two tools overlap in functionality, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) while others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info, tribunal_trt10_processo_consultar). The domain tool's name is unusually long and specific, further breaking uniformity.
The server is intended for TRT10 process consultation, yet 6 of 7 tools are generic platform utilities unrelated to the domain. Only one tool actually performs the stated purpose, making the set poorly scoped for the server's user-facing role.
The domain surface consists of a single query tool (tribunal_trt10_processo_consultar) with no supporting operations like search variants, history, or bulk actions. While it may cover a simple 'consult by process number' workflow, any additional need within the domain would fail, and the platform tools do not address domain-specific gaps.