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 readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about what the state includes (installed MCPs, connections, accounts, tool counts), which clarifies the tool's scope. No contradictions with 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 that front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and efficiently lists the key elements after a colon. There is no wasted wording.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so clearly by enumerating what the state includes. For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, this is sufficient and 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 tool has zero parameters, so schema_description_coverage is 100% trivially. Per rubric, 0 params = baseline 4; the description need not explain parameters, and it doesn't, so a 4 is appropriate.
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' and enumerates specific contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This specific verb and resource scope distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate/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 when to use this tool—whenever you need an overview of toolkit state—and the sibling names suggest other tools serve different actions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.
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 fairly clear role, but the boundaries blur around `authenticate`, `connect`, and `marketplace`: all three deal with credentials, connection status, and running platform tools. The single DETRAN query tool is unique, but an agent could hesitate between using it directly and using `marketplace` to invoke a similar paid/one-off tool.
Naming conventions are mixed: the domain tool is a long Portuguese snake_case verb (`detran_ms_multas_flex_consultar`), while several Spanish/English short verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`, `marketplace`) and compound nouns (`toolkit_info`, `show_version`) are used. There is no consistent verb_noun or naming pattern across the set.
Seven tools is not an unreasonable number, but six are generic platform and housekeeping operations rather than DETRAN-focused functionality. For a server advertised as a DETRAN MS fine tool, the set is heavily weighted away from the domain and feels imbalanced.
The only actual DETRAN capability is a single `consultar` operation, which may handle basic fine consultation but leaves no room for related domain needs such as vehicle/plate context, fine details, or payment/preparation flows. The `marketplace` tool is an escape hatch to external tools, not a coherent native DETRAN domain surface.