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. The description adds value by specifying exactly what state is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), which is especially helpful given there is no output schema. It does not discuss caching or freshness, but for an annotations-backed read-only tool this is sufficient.
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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and enumerates the relevant output categories after a colon. Every clause adds information with no filler or 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 introspection tool, the description covers the essential output facets. It does not describe the exact data format or possible status values, but it provides enough detail for an agent to decide to call this tool and to interpret the general shape of the result.
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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline of 4 applies; no additional semantic explanations are required.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with concrete components: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate/connect, which perform actions, and show_version, which is narrower.
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 makes the use case clear: call this when you need a summary of the toolkit's overall state. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for narrower queries, but the context strongly implies it is the go-to read-only overview tool.
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 JUCESP query tool is clearly distinct from the meta/platform tools. The main ambiguity is only between authenticate and connect, but their descriptions define different responsibilities (credential acquisition vs. connection status reporting).
Naming is noticeably mixed: bare verbs (authenticate, connect), snake_case verb+noun forms (report_bug, show_version), noun-only names (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese language domain-specific tool (jucesp_documentos_consultar). No unified convention is maintained.
Seven tools is a manageable count, but most of them are generic platform support tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version) rather than JUCESP domain tools. The server feels functionally thin for a domain-capable MCP, even though it does not have a bloat problem.
The server exposes only a single domain operation for querying archived JUCESP documents, with no filtering, detail view, pagination, download, or lifecycle tools. Beyond that one query, the remaining tools cover infrastructure rather than the stated JUCESP use-case, so the domain surface is quite incomplete.