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, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the return payload (state of MCPs, accounts, catalog tools), but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like rate limits or permission requirements.
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, succinct sentence that front-loads the purpose and concretely enumerates the returned state elements. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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 simple, read-only, parameterless tool, the description fully explains what the agent will receive. It covers all relevant aspects of the toolkit state and does not need an output schema since the return contents are clearly enumerated.
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 description has nothing to explain. The schema is empty and coverage is trivially 100%; the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no param details because none are needed.
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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state') with detailed scope: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it returns, not when to invoke it or that, for example, show_version might be more appropriate for version-specific info.
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 serve distinct platform functions (auth, connection status, marketplace, bug reporting, version, toolkit info), and the TRT consultation tool is clearly separate. Some overlap exists between 'authenticate' and 'connect' (both deal with connection/auth state), but their roles are sufficiently differentiated by descriptions.
Tool names mix English and Portuguese, and follow no uniform pattern: some are lowercase verbs (authenticate, connect), one is an underscored lowercase noun (toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a Portuguese verb_noun structure (trt_processos_consultar). This inconsistency makes the set feel disjointed.
With 7 tools, the count is not excessive, but the scope is muddled: six generic platform tools are paired with one domain-specific tool. For a server named 'Processos TRT', the majority are unrelated, while for a platform server, the TRT tool seems out of place. The tool set lacks a clear, focused purpose.
For the apparent TRT domain, only a single query operation is provided (consult by CPF/CNPJ). There is no support for fetching process details by number, checking status, or any other related operations. The platform tools add broad capabilities, but they do not address gaps in the domain surface, leaving the server incomplete for its stated purpose.