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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint, so safety is known. Description adds specifics about what the state includes—installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts—which is helpful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Returns', and enumerates contents efficiently. No wasted words.
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 info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned information. It could optionally mention the format of connection statuses, but the current level is sufficient for invocation.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The schema correctly shows an empty object, and the description does not need to add parameter details. 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?
The description clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state, listing specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version and authenticate.
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?
It provides clear context that this tool is for inspecting toolkit state, which is useful for understanding what's connected. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or mention any exclusions.
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 are clearly distinct: authenticate handles login, connect shows status, marketplace discovers and runs tools, report_bug is for feedback, show_version is for versions, toolkit_info shows installed state, and the TSE tool is a specific query. However, connect and toolkit_info both touch on connection status, which could cause minor confusion.
Names follow no single pattern: some are single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun snake_case (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun_noun (toolkit_info), and the TSE tool is a long snake_case phrase (tse_quitacao_eleitoral_consultar). This mix makes the set feel inconsistent and unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the set is split between general MCP platform management and a single TSE-specific consultation. This split makes the server feel unfocused and broader than its stated purpose, though it is not extreme.
The TSE domain is severely underrepresented, with only one consultation tool and no associated operations like validation or history. The platform management tools are fairly complete but belong to a different domain, leaving the actual stated purpose with significant gaps.