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 disclose read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by detailing exactly what the returned state includes (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which helps the agent understand what information will be available.
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 that is front-loaded with the primary purpose and accurately enumerates the returned elements without any fluff. Every word adds value.
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 fully covers what the tool does and the nature of its return value. It is complete for the context, and the annotations provide the remaining safety profile.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain any parameter details. Per the rubric, this situation receives the baseline of 4.
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, explicitly listing the included components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). The verb 'Returns' is specific, and the scope distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like authenticate 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?
Usage is implied for inspecting toolkit state, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_version. No exclusions or recommended contexts are mentioned, leaving some room for interpretation.
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 have clearly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace exploration, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. However, 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report on connection status, which could cause some confusion for an agent deciding which to call.
Naming is highly inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace), verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version), noun-based names (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese verb_noun_noun phrase (veiculo_frotas_consultar). There is no uniform convention or predictable verb/noun ordering.
Although there are 7 tools, 6 of them are generic platform management utilities unrelated to the server's stated purpose ('Veículos do Proprietário'). The single domain-specific tool is buried among unrelated infrastructure tools, making the count feel bloated and unfocused for the apparent vehicle-query scope.
For a server named 'Veículos do Proprietário', only one vehicle-related operation exists (consult by CPF/CNPJ). There is no way to list, update, delete, or otherwise manage vehicle records. The tool offers a single lookup with no CRUD lifecycle coverage, leaving the domain surface severely incomplete.