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 cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about what the return value includes (installed MCPs, connection status, etc.), which helps understand the tool's output. No contradictions were found.
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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the main purpose and listing specifics concisely. Every word earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns by listing the key state components. It's complete for a simple read-only no-parameter tool, with rich annotations already providing safety 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 description correctly avoids parameter details. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics.
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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling action tools like 'authenticate' 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 implies the tool is for checking toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, so usage context is only implied by the tool's nature.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and authenticate also deals with credentials. The marketplace tool is a catch-all for many actions (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, etc.), making it hard to predict what it does from its name alone. The domain-specific tool (mpmt_procedimentos_consultar) is distinct, but the platform tools blur together.
Naming is inconsistent across the set: verb_noun (show_version, report_bug), bare verbs (connect, authenticate), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese phrase (mpmt_procedimentos_consultar). There is no coherent pattern in style or language, making the tool names feel ad hoc.
At 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but one tool (marketplace) is overloaded with dozens of sub-actions, making the real surface much larger and harder to grasp. The server mixes platform administration tools with a single domain operation, which feels unbalanced for its stated focus on procedures.
For the domain of consulting public ministry procedures, the single consultation tool is functional but minimal—there are no related operations like history, PDF export, or batch queries. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) cover administration broadly, but the overall purpose of the server is unclear, making it hard to assess whether gaps exist.