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 value by specifying exactly what aspects of toolkit state are exposed (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), offering more transparency than the annotations alone.
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 sentence, front-loads the action ('Returns the current toolkit state'), and lists the key details without any filler. Every element contributes to understanding, and it is highly concise.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It fully specifies what the tool returns, and annotations cover safety. There are no gaps that would prevent an agent from correctly invoking or interpreting the tool.
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?
Schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't, which is acceptable. No additional parameter semantics are required.
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's function: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific contents (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which have 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 provides clear context by detailing the type of information returned, which implies use when a user needs an overview of toolkit state. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but given the read-only informational nature, the context is sufficient.
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 systematically distinct (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), but the marketplace tool bundles many sub-actions that overlap with standalone tools like report_bug and with authentication concerns. The single CNDT tool is clearly different, yet the mix of platform management and domain-specific tools can cause confusion about intended usage.
Names mix single verbs, noun phrases, and a prefixed 'tst_' among the domain tool, with no consistent verb_noun pattern. This is further complicated by 'marketplace' being a noun while others like 'connect' and 'authenticate' are verbs.
Seven tools falls within the recommended range, but the majority are generic platform utilities that seem unrelated to the CNDT (labor debt certificate) purpose. One domain-specific tool and six platform tools suggests the count is more about platform infrastructure than the server's stated mission.
The CNDT workflow is covered by a single query tool, and the supporting tools for authentication and payment exist, so basic usage is possible. However, there is no history, batch query, or administrative functionality, and the platform tools do not directly enhance the CNDT domain, leaving a thin surface for the server's apparent purpose.