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, indicating it is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns the 'current toolkit state' and enumerates what that includes, which aligns with the annotations. The description does not contradict the annotations. Since annotations cover safety, the description's contribution is to enumerate what 'state' means, which is helpful. Given the strong annotation coverage, a 4 is appropriate because the description adds meaningful context beyond the 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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists specific components. It is efficient with no fluff, and the structure is well-organized. Every part 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, returns a state report) and the strong annotations, the description is quite complete. It enumerates the major components of the returned state: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. There is no output schema, but the description adequately conveys what the agent can expect. It could be more detailed about the exact structure of the output, but for a zero-parameter info tool, it is sufficient.
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 description's job is to explain what the tool does, not parameter syntax. The description clearly outlines what information is returned, which is the key semantic content. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is fair: the description is clear about the tool's function even though it doesn't need to explain parameters.
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 that this tool returns the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It doesn't just repeat the name ('toolkit_info') but elaborates on the specific content returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'marketplace' or 'show_version' that might be related but serve different purposes.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is clear: it is a general status/state tool, so an agent could infer it is appropriate when needing an overview of the toolkit. No explicit exclusions or mentions of alternatives are provided, but the tool's name and description imply it is the go-to for state inspection.
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.
The flightradar_* tools are clearly distinct from each other, but the server mixes them with generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) that serve different purposes and some overlap (connect vs. authenticate; marketplace vs. toolkit_info). This creates ambiguity about what the server is actually for.
There is a clear pattern for flightradar_* tools (prefix + resource), but the rest are named inconsistently: simple verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version). No single naming convention is applied across the whole set.
Twelve tools is a reasonable number, but the count is inflated by six unrelated platform management tools that don't belong in a flight radar server. The set feels over-scoped for its stated name and under-scoped for a general MCP platform.
The flightradar_* tools cover core needs: aircraft lookup, airport info, nearby traffic, closest aircraft, military and type filters. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no flight tracks or scheduled arrivals), but the domain is well covered. The platform tools are irrelevant to flight radar but complete in themselves.