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 include readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, counts) but doesn't disclose any potential delays or the nature of the accounts (e.g., whether they are auth-related). It doesn't contradict annotations.
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 core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and enumerates useful details. It is concise and efficient with no fluff, though it could be seen as slightly verbose for a zero-parameter tool.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, it provides a good overview of what is returned but lacks specifics like the format of the response (e.g., list vs object) or any error conditions. Since complexity is low, it's sufficient, but it could give a touch more detail.
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?
There are 0 parametersholsters, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate per the rubric. The description adequately explains the no-input nature by focusing on what is returned, which is all that is needed.
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, listing specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.
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 usage when you need an overview of the toolkit's current stateable componentsaines, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'show_version' or 'marketplace'. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.
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, but 'authenticate' and 'connect' both involve authentication flows, and 'toolkit_info' overlaps slightly with 'connect' regarding status. The descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate them, but the boundary between these administrative tools could lead to some mis-selection.
Names use consistent snake_case, but conventions vary: some are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) while others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). The domain-specific 'cade_processos_consultar' breaks the pattern by mixing a proper noun with a verb. Overall, the mixture is readable but not uniform.
Seven tools is within the ideal range and each earns its place for platform management. However, the server is titled 'CADE: Processos' yet only one tool is domain-specific, making the count feel imbalanced. A slightly smaller number of utility tools would better match the apparent purpose.
The server offers only a single domain operation ('cade_processos_consultar') for what appears to be a legal processes server. There are no list, get-details, or workflow operations beyond the one query, leaving significant gaps for common use cases. The rest of the tools are unrelated to the domain, focused on platform administration.