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 description 'Returns the current toolkit state' clearly indicates a read-only, idempotent operation, which aligns perfectly with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. No contradictions. It also clarifies what state is returned, making behavior transparent.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with 'Returns the current toolkit state' and then enumerates the details. No fluff, 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?
For a simple info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the main content of the return value. However, it doesn't specify how the information is structured (e.g., nested objects), but that might be self-evident from the tool name and sibling tools. Given the simplicity, it's near 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?
Tool has zero parameters, so per calibration baseline is 4. The description adds context by explaining what the tool returns, which is more than the empty schema provides but not needed for parameters. Thus, a solid 4.
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 explicitly states that the tool returns the current toolkit state and lists the specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose, which for a read-only info tool is exactly what is needed.
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 usage for checking toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., before connecting). However, given the function name and zero parameters, the context is clear enough. It could benefit from a note about typical usage scenarios.
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 single domain tool is clearly distinct, but the platform tools overlap: `authenticate`/`connect` both relate to connection state, and `marketplace`/`toolkit_info` both describe installed or callable tools. The long descriptions help, but the boundaries are not crisp, especially since `marketplace` also bundles sub-actions like `report_bug` that exist as a standalone tool.
Names mix one-word verbs (`connect`, `authenticate`), noun-only names (`marketplace`), snake_case verb+object compounds (`report_bug`, `show_version`), and a long Portuguese-style domain name (`git_cidadao_pr_multas_consultar`). There is no consistent naming convention or language across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable raw count, but the set is really six platform utilities plus one domain-specific fines query. For a server named after a specific Brazilian fines product, the tool list feels padded and not tightly scoped to the apparent purpose.
The core operation, consulting official Brazilian fine information, is covered by `git_cidadao_pr_multas_consultar`, and the generic utilities handle auth, status, and billing-related flows. However, there are no other direct domain operations, and managing prepaid credits or query history is left to the catch-all `marketplace` tool.