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 mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing that it returns not just connection status but also account associations and catalog tool counts, which is behavior not visible in annotations or schema.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the key content groups. No filler or redundant wording.
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 absence of an output schema, the description fully enumerates what the agent can expect to receive. It is complete for a simple status tool, covering all relevant aspects (MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts) without needing additional context.
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 schema provides complete coverage (100%). The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document and the description adequately explains the operation without needing to reference inputs.
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 as 'current toolkit state', then enumerates its contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or connect.
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 clearly conveys that this is the tool for inspecting toolkit state, implying use when you need an overview of MCP connections and accounts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the uniqueness of the described output makes the use case obvious.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: platform utilities (authenticate, connect, marketplace) have clear separate roles, and microvix_* tools each target a different entity (clientes, lojas, movimento, pedidos, produtos variants, etc.). However, the marketplace tool has multiple sub-functions (search, describe, invoke, install) that could blur boundaries, but its description is thorough enough to prevent confusion.
All tools use consistent snake_case naming. Platform tools are short descriptive words (authenticate, connect, marketplace), while domain-specific tools all follow the 'microvix_entity' pattern (e.g., microvix_clientes_fornec, microvix_produtos). No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verb styles.
With 16 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still well-scoped. The platform utilities (6 tools) are necessary for authentication, marketplace interaction, and status; the 10 microvix-* tools cover the core domain tables without bloating. The count is reasonable for a server that combines platform and data query capabilities.
The microvix domain tools provide comprehensive read access to key entities (clientes, lojas, movimento, pedidos, produtos, inventário, vendedores), but there are no write/update tools (e.g., create_cliente, update_produto). For a data query server this may be acceptable, but the absence of CRUD operations is a notable gap if the purpose is to manage Microvix data fully.