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?
The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by detailing the specific state information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond a generic 'returns state'.
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, front-loaded sentence that names the tool's output and provides a clear list of the included details. Every word earns its place with no 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?
For a zero-parameter read-only status tool with strong annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and output. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit enumeration of returned content, making the description 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?
There are no parameters, so the schema is fully covered by the empty properties object. The description's mention of what state is returned indirectly explains why no parameters are needed, making the baseline of 4 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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and the resource 'current toolkit state', then enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or authenticate.
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 the tool is for inspecting the overall toolkit state, and the listed contents convey when it would be useful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling list provides context.
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 are clearly distinct, especially the f360_* family which separates listing, detail, and report generation per resource. However, 'authenticate' and 'connect' both deal with connection state, and 'f360_list_accounts' vs 'f360_listar_planos_contas' could be confused without reading descriptions closely.
Naming is inconsistent: generic tools use simple English verbs (connect, show_version), while financial tools mix English (list_accounts) and Portuguese (listar_notas, obter_xml) with inconsistent verb forms and prefixes. The patterns are not predictable across the full set.
At 19 tools, the set is borderline heavy. Six tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are platform-level utilities unrelated to the financial domain, inflating the count; the remaining 13 financial tools are well-scoped for a read-only reporting API.
The financial tools cover listing and detail retrieval for core entities (accounts, notes, people, chart of accounts) and generate/download reports. However, there are no create/update/delete operations, and no getter for accounts or other entities, limiting the surface to read-only reporting.