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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which is not present in the annotations. It doesn't disclose rate limits or pagination, but none are expected for a simple state query.
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 front-loads the main action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific data items. Every word contributes meaning with no fluff or repetition.
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 read-only info tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description fully specifies what the agent can expect: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. There are no missing prerequisites or side effects to disclose, and the tool is simple enough that this description is complete.
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 baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information because there are none to explain.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with concrete details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report state.
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 makes it evident when to use this tool—whenever an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's MCP connections and accounts. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the clear informational purpose contrasts with the action-oriented sibling tools, providing enough context to select it appropriately.
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 distinct purposes: authenticate is for login token, connect for status, marketplace for discovering/running MCPs, report_bug for feedback, show_version for versions, toolkit_info for installed state, and the domain-specific consultar tool. The only slight overlap is between authenticate and connect, as both relate to connection/auth, but their functions are clearly differentiated in the descriptions.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), compound nouns (toolkit_info), and a snake_case domain-specific name (veiculo_historico_sp_consultar). Mixing conventions makes it hard to predict related tool names.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range. However, the server bundles broad platform utilities with a single domain-specific tool, creating a mismatch with the server name. Still, the count itself is reasonable for the actual functionality offered.
For the vehicle history domain, there is only one consult tool, which covers the basic query but lacks any supporting operations (e.g., history, status, or batch). The platform utilities are fairly complete but belong to a different purpose. This leaves notable gaps if the server is meant to be a cohesive vehicle-history service.