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's 'Returns' is consistent with this. The description adds valuable context about the content of the state (installed MCPs, connection statuses, accounts, catalog counts), enriching the agent's understanding of the response without contradicting 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 sentence that immediately states the action ('Returns') and lists specific data categories, with no redundant phrases. It is front-loaded and concise, earning full marks.
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 info tool with annotations providing safety cues, the description sufficiently covers the return content. It does not need to explain return format or side effects because there are none, and the description is complete for its simplicity.
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 takes zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adequately conveys the tool's interface.
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 a specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource 'current toolkit state,' enumerating exact data categories (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report state.
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 indicates the tool provides state information, so an agent would use it when needing an overview of the toolkit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (auth, connecting, marketplace) implies a distinct informational role, earning a 4 rather than a 5.
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 platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are individually distinct, but the server is named 'OFAC (Sanções EUA)' and contains a single OFAC-specific tool alongside six generic MCP platform tools, creating a confusing mix. An agent could easily misselect a platform tool when the intent is sanctions checking, and the marketplace tool's broad multi-purpose nature adds further ambiguity.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: 'ofac_consultar' is Portuguese snake_case, while the others are English and use varied forms (single verbs like 'connect', noun-based like 'toolkit_info', and verb_noun like 'report_bug'). There is no unifying pattern that reflects a coherent server purpose.
Seven tools is a reasonable count in general, but for an OFAC sanctions server the count is inappropriate: six of the seven are generic MCP platform utilities, leaving only one actual sanctions-related tool. The tool surface is cluttered with irrelevant functionality rather than being scoped to the server's stated purpose.
The OFAC domain is severely incomplete: only one tool (ofac_consultar) addresses sanctions, with no support for other common operations like batch checks, list selection, or detailed record retrieval. The remaining tools cover a different domain entirely (MCP platform management), leaving the intended purpose almost entirely unserved.