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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the exact content returned, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention any side effects or caveats, but none are apparent.
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, highly concise, and front-loaded with the main action. It lists the key output items without wasting words, achieving excellent structure.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool returns, covering all relevant aspects of the toolkit state. No additional information is needed.
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 and the schema is empty, so parameter explanation is unnecessary. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly ignores parameters, focusing on the output.
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 with specific data categories (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinct resource is separate from siblings like show_version, which focuses on version info.
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 when the user needs an overview of toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like show_version or marketplaces. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.
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: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state, and vehicle consultation. No two tools overlap in functionality, so an agent can reliably select the right one.
Tool names are inconsistent, mixing English verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace), verb+noun (report_bug, show_version), noun+noun (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese snake_case domain term (veiculo_estadual_consultar). No consistent convention is used across the set.
Seven tools is a moderate count, but six of them are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated vehicle-consultation purpose. The domain-specific surface is minimal, making the server feel padded with infrastructure tools.
For the domain of vehicle consultation, the single tool covers the core needs (lookup by plate with debts and situation). There are minor potential gaps, such as distinguishing different query types (e.g., by VIN), but the current surface is workable for a read-only consultation service.