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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the exact state information returned, which goes beyond the 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?
A single, well-structured sentence that lists the key return contents without fluff. 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?
For a parameterless read-only state tool, the description fully covers what it does and what it returns. No output schema exists, so the enumerative details provide complete contextual information.
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 carries no parameter burden. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional semantics are needed.
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?
Clear, specific verb ('returns') and resource ('toolkit state') with detailed enumeration of what's included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, 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 communicates the tool's purpose as a state overview, giving the agent context for when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's uniqueness among siblings makes the use case evident.
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.
There is a separate report_bug tool while marketplace also mentions report_bug internally, causing duplication. Additionally, authenticate and connect both deal with authentication/connection status, creating boundary confusion.
Tool names mix English and Portuguese (authenticate vs nfe_completa_consultar), and mix verb forms (authenticate, connect) with noun forms (marketplace, toolkit_info), with no consistent verb_noun pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a server, but the massive marketplace tool bundles dozens of operations into a single tool, making the set feel both overcrowded and under-represented.
The NFe consultation itself is a single query tool, and the rest are platform utilities not directly related to NFe, so the domain coverage is thin. Missing functions like listing past consultations or managing account credits, though the core consult works.