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 and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific components of the returned state (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful context, but it does not describe the return format or any potential delays/errors. This matches the calibration example where added scoping detail earned a 3.
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-loaded with the verb and resource, and enumerates the returned elements without unnecessary words. Every piece of information is relevant and directly supports tool selection.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description fully captures its function and output categories. There is no missing information that would hinder an agent's decision to invoke it.
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 properties, so there are no parameters to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools; the description needs no parameter compensation.
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 'Returns' as a specific verb and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which describe actions.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever one needs the current toolkit state, including MCP connections and accounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the specificity of the output, the usage context is unambiguous.
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 operations, version info, toolkit state, and vehicle history query. Some overlap exists between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' (both report connection state), but descriptions are sufficient to distinguish them. The marketplace tool is broad but internally coherent.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb-noun with underscore (report_bug, show_version), and a Portuguese domain-specific name (veiculo_historico_consultar). Mixing languages and grammatical forms makes the naming unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a platform utility server, but the server name suggests a dedicated vehicle history service, with only one tool actually related to that domain. The rest are generic MCP meta-tools, making the count seem padded or the scope unclear.
For a server named 'Histórico Veicular Nacional', only one tool addresses the apparent domain. There are no other vehicle-related operations (e.g., search by plate, list vehicles, different document types), and the remaining tools are unrelated platform utilities. This leaves significant gaps if the intended use is comprehensive vehicle history coverage.