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?
The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds context about the returned content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. With strong annotations, the bar is met but not exceeded.
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 lists the key return components in a logical order. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids any filler or redundant details.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the return value contains. It enumerates all major elements of the toolkit state, making it complete for an agent to understand the tool's output without additional documentation.
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 schema fully covers them (100% coverage). The description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings; the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no relevant parameter information.
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') with a clearly defined resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or connect, which serve different 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: use this when needing the current toolkit state. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the explicit 'current' and the nature of the info, an agent can infer it, but there is no direct guidance or mention of sibling alternatives.
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 overall purpose, but the marketplace tool is a catch-all covering search, invoke, install, prompts, and more, while authenticate and connect overlap in handling credentials and connection status. This creates some ambiguity for an agent choosing between them, especially since the domain-specific tool is the only one actually related to the server's stated purpose.
All names use lowercase snake_case, so there is no mixing of conventions, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), and the domain tool is a long descriptive phrase. This makes the set readable but not predictable.
At 7 tools, the count is within a typical range, but 6 of them are generic platform utilities that do not relate to the server's stated TSE certidão domain. This bloats the tool list for a service whose actual scope is a single lookup operation, making the count feel inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
The one domain tool covers the core action of emitting a certidão, but there are no supporting operations such as verifying a certidão, checking request history, or listing available certidões. The platform tools do not contribute to the domain, so the surface is narrowly functional but lacks any lifecycle or auxiliary operations.