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 concrete context about what the read operation exposes, such as connection status and account info, going slightly beyond the structured traits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence conveys all necessary information without fluff. Every clause adds specific value: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts.
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, read-only status tool, the description fully enumerates the return contents and scope. No output schema exists, but the description fills the gap adequately, so an agent can predict what the tool returns and when to call 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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there is no schema to explain. The description appropriately focuses on output rather than inputs, which is entirely sufficient for this simple introspection case.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Returns' and exact resource 'current toolkit state', enumerating the returned contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the description: an agent would call this to inspect toolkit state. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over sibling tools, though their purposes are somewhat inferable.
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.
Several tools have overlapping responsibilities: connect and toolkit_info both report connection/status details, and marketplace includes report_bug and list_tools functionality that duplicates dedicated tools. Only der_sp_multas_consultar has a clearly unique domain purpose.
Tool names mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), snake_case domain terms (der_sp_multas_consultar), and noun-style commands (marketplace, toolkit_info), with no consistent verb_noun convention. The naming feels ad hoc rather than patterned.
Seven tools is within a reasonable numeric range, but the server's scope is split between one domain-specific query and several generic platform utilities. The marketplace tool also packs many suboperations into a single megatool, making the apparent tool count misleading.
For a server named 'Multas e Recursos', the only domain tool is a single consultation action; there is no appeal/recursos workflow or broader fine lifecycle coverage. The remaining tools are platform management utilities rather than domain features.