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 context about the specific constituents of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools), which is useful but does not go further into potential side effects or usage limitations.
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 immediately states the core purpose and then lists the return content with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and highly concise.
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?
This is a simple read-only info tool with no parameters and a strong annotation set. The description fully explains what the tool returns, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit enumeration of return components.
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 0 parameters, so the schema fully covers them and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not need to explain parameter details.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly defines the resource as 'the current toolkit state', then enumerates the exact information provided (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug.
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 this tool (when the current toolkit state is needed) and no exclusions are given. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident given the context of sibling tools.
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 broadly distinct role—auth, status, marketplace, version, toolkit info, and the domain query. However, `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection state, and `marketplace` bundles many sub-operations (search, invoke, install, prompts) into one tool, which can blur boundaries.
Naming is inconsistent: platform tools mix verb-led names (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with noun-led names (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the single domain tool uses a Portuguese noun-based phrase (vinculos_societarios_consultar). This mixing of language and pattern makes the set feel arbitrary.
The server is named 'Vínculos Societários' but only one of seven tools is domain-specific; the other six are generic platform management tools that could belong to any MCP server. The domain tool count is too thin, while the meta-tool count is oversized relative to the stated purpose.
For the domain of corporate relationship lookup, only a single consult operation is provided. There are no supporting tools for data preview, history, export, or related searches, and no obvious operations to complement the core query. The platform helpers do not contribute to domain coverage.