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. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing exactly what state is reported (MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), which is useful for an agent.
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, front-loaded sentence that lists all key details without wasted words. Every phrase earns its place.
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, no-parameter informational tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It specifies what is returned and covers the tool's scope. No output schema exists, but the description adequately conveys the tool's function for an agent.
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, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (vacuously). The description adds context about the returned information, but no parameter explanations are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning the current toolkit state. It enumerates specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which distinguishes it from sibling action tools like authenticate and 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?
The description implies the tool is for checking state, and its read-only nature is clear from context. It does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or list exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an informational tool.
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 distinct function, but 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection status from different angles, causing mild overlap.
Names mix English and Portuguese, verbs and nouns, with inconsistent patterns (e.g., 'vinculo_empregaticio_consultar' vs 'report_bug'). No consistent verb_noun convention.
Seven tools is a moderate count, but six are generic platform utilities while only one serves the server's stated domain, making the set feel oversized and unfocused.
For the employment query domain, the single consult tool covers the core operation, but lacks any related features like history or multi-query support; platform utilities fill the rest.