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, so the description is not obligated to repeat these. The description adds context about what specific state is returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), which enriches the agent's understanding beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.
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 then enumerates the specific components of that state. Every phrase contributes useful information with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description fully covers the return content by listing the main categories (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). The annotations confirm it is read-only and idempotent, so no additional safety or side-effect documentation is needed.
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 is empty and fully covers (100%) the parameter space. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none to explain.
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 verb 'returns' and the resource 'current toolkit state', listing specific elements: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect', which perform actions, while this one is a read-only introspection tool.
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 makes it evident that the tool is used to retrieve an overview of the toolkit's connections and tools, which is clear context for when it would be valuable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives, though its name 'toolkit_info' and read-only nature make this fairly unambiguous.
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.
authenticate and connect overlap on credential/connection territory, and marketplace is an overloaded mega-tool that also contains report_bug, list_tools, install, subscribe, and connect-related flows, duplicating several dedicated tools. Only dprf_nada_consta_consultar has a clearly unique, non-overlapping purpose.
The tool names are a mix of English imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), English noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long Portuguese resource-style name (dprf_nada_consta_consultar). There is no consistent verb_noun or language pattern to guide an agent's selection.
Seven tools is not a large count, but only one tool is actually domain-specific to the DPRF Nada Consta purpose. The other six are generic platform/management tools, so the server feels like a broad platform with a single domain query bolted on rather than a focused domain MCP.
The core flow is covered: authenticate/connect for access, dprf_nada_consta_consultar for the actual inqueria, and marketplace for payment/top-up. There is no deeper history or detail-level management surface, but for a read-only official consultation service the primary workflow is present.