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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what information is returned, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns'), enumerates the key output categories, and contains no wasted words. Every phrase adds value.
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 no-parameter, read-only info tool, the description completely captures what an agent needs to know to decide to call it. The lack of an output schema is compensated by a clear list of the returned information groups.
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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the absence of schema properties makes the tool self-explanatory.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly defines the resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version, which likely focuses on version info.
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?
While no explicit alternatives are named, the description clearly implies this tool is for inspecting the current toolkit state, which is distinct from state-changing siblings like connect and authenticate. The absence of exclusions is acceptable given the uniqueness of its purpose.
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: authenticate handles login tokens, connect shows status, fgts_regularidade_consultar performs the actual FGTS query, and report_bug/show_version/toolkit_info are clearly separate. However, authenticate and connect both deal with authentication/connection status, and marketplace overlaps somewhat with toolkit_info in listing available tools, creating minor ambiguity.
Naming is highly inconsistent: tools mix bare verbs (connect, authenticate), snake_case with a Portuguese verb at the end (fgts_regularidade_consultar), compound nouns (toolkit_info, marketplace), and verb_noun styles with underscores (report_bug, show_version). No consistent pattern or language convention is followed.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a server, but the set feels like a grab-bag of platform management utilities rather than a cohesive domain. Given the server name 'Regularidade FGTS', most tools are unrelated to FGTS, making the scope feel bloated with generic infrastructure tools and underweighted on actual FGTS functionality.
For a server ostensibly about FGTS certificates, only one tool (fgts_regularidade_consultar) addresses that domain, leaving no other operations like validation, history, or batch processing. The platform tools are complete for managing MCPs, but they don't contribute to the stated FGTS purpose, creating a significant gap in domain coverage.