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 safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying the exact content of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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 lists the return content efficiently. Every element (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) earns its place, with no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains what to expect from the response. It covers the main aspects of 'toolkit state' but could optionally clarify how the information is structured (e.g., if it's a flat list or grouped by MCP). Still, for an info tool, it's sufficiently 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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly implies that no input is needed to retrieve the state, and since there are no parameters, there is nothing more 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 tool's function: returning the current toolkit state with specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This verb+resource framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version (version only) and getnet_list_accounts (specific integration data).
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—whenever an overview of toolkit state is needed—by explicitly listing what it returns. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is obvious enough that usage is clear without explicit when/when-not guidance.
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 clearly distinct function: Getnet-specific tools target different resources (cards, payments, customers, accounts), while platform tools handle authentication, connection status, marketplace lookup, bug reporting, and version info. There is no overlap in the actions they perform.
The Getnet tools follow a consistent `getnet_` prefix with verb_noun structure, but the platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) use a mix of bare verbs and noun phrases, and lack the prefix. This creates two divergent naming conventions within the same server.
With 11 tools, the server has a reasonable number for a mixed-purpose integration. However, the inclusion of platform-wide management tools alongside Getnet-specific ones makes the scope feel broader than a typical payment server, but the count itself is not excessive.
The Getnet-specific tools are read-only (list/get operations) with no ability to create, update, or delete customers, cards, or payments. This is a significant gap for a payment-related server, though the marketplace tool could potentially compensate by invoking other MCPs.