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 and destructiveHint=false, and the description consistently describes a read-only operation. It adds useful context about the exact data returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the raw annotations. No contradictions.
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, fully front-loaded with the verb 'Returns' and the object 'current toolkit state'. Every phrase adds value, listing the key aspects without unnecessary fluff.
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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully conveys the purpose and content of the returned state. It covers the main components (MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts) and needs no further elaboration.
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, so the description adds no parameter-specific information, but that's appropriate. Since schema coverage is 100% (vacuously) and there are no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies.
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 returns the current toolkit state, listing specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or show_version, which focus on performing actions or showing version info.
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 inspecting state but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. It doesn't say, for example, 'use this to verify connections before authenticating' or note that it doesn't modify anything. Usage is only inferred from the clear purpose.
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 five multa-related tools are clearly distinct by resource (vehicle debts, history, federal infractions, CNH points, vehicles by owner), but the platform-level tools overlap: authenticate/connect/toolkit_info all touch connection/auth status, and marketplace bundles many separate capabilities into one broad tool. This creates some boundary confusion for an agent selecting between them.
Domain tools follow a consistent 'multas_' prefix pattern, but utility tools use inconsistent English verb/noun styles: authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info. Mixing Portuguese noun-phrase names with generic English imperative/descriptive names makes the set feel disjointed and pattern-less.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range, but it feels top-heavy because only five tools actually serve the core fines-consulta domain while the rest are platform/account/admin utilities. The huge marketplace tool also compresses many sub-operations into one entry, making the count misleading.
The core query workflow is covered: find vehicles by owner, query vehicle debts by plate, check federal infractions, and verify CNH points. Missing features like fine payment or appeal detail are beyond the stated consulta purpose, so there are only minor workaround-level gaps for the apparent scope.