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 covered. The description adds context about the returned information (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or auth requirements. It does not contradict 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, well-structured sentence that lists the key outputs without any extraneous wording. Every phrase adds value, making it highly efficient.
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, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. The read-only behavior is implicitly clear from 'Returns' and explicitly confirmed by annotations, so the information is complete for this informational tool.
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 has nothing to add beyond the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter explanation is needed; the description's focus on the return payload is sufficient.
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: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it well from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and show_version.
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 the tool is appropriate (whenever you need an overview of toolkit state), but it does not explicitly mention exclusions or direct alternatives. Given the sibling tools serve clearly different purposes, the context is sufficient without needing explicit when-not-to-use 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, connect shows connection status, marketplace is a catalog/execution platform, and mpf_certidao_consultar is the domain operation. Confusion could arise between marketplace's invoke functionality and the direct tool, and between connect and toolkit_info, but detailed descriptions mitigate ambiguity.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools are single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), some use snake_case with verbs (report_bug, show_version), and others are noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, and mpf_certidao_consultar stands out as a domain-specific name among generic platform names.
With 7 tools, the count is not inherently excessive, but the server is named 'Certidão MPF' and only one tool actually relates to that domain. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the toolset feel bloated for its apparent purpose. A more focused server would have just the certidão tool or additional related domain tools.
For the specific operation of querying a certidão, the single tool mpf_certidao_consultar is complete as it provides the necessary functionality. However, the server's broader purpose is unclear—it includes platform-level tools that do not serve a unified domain, so there are potential gaps if a user expects related certidão operations or management features beyond a simple query.