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. The description adds valuable transparency by spelling out what state is returned: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It does not describe return formatting or potential staleness, but 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. It front-loads the verb and resource, then lists concrete details. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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?
This is a low-complexity, stateless info tool with no parameters and strong annotations. The description fully specifies the returned information categories, so the tool is adequately documented even without an output schema.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description has no parameter details to provide, and no missing parameter information needs compensation since the tool takes no arguments.
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?
Description opens with the specific verb 'Returns' and names the resource: 'the current toolkit state'. It enumerates the exact content (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts), making it clearly distinct from siblings like show_version and marketplace.
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 when to invoke the tool: whenever an agent needs an overview of installed MCPs, their status, accounts, or exposed tool counts. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the detailed content makes the use context obvious and no exclusions are needed.
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.
Several tools serve overlapping meta-purposes: 'authenticate' and 'connect' both handle connection/auth flows, while 'marketplace', 'report_bug', 'show_version', and 'toolkit_info' are generic platform utilities that could apply to any server, not specific to the PRF débitos domain. This creates confusion about when to use which tool, especially for an agent expecting a focused domain toolset.
The one domain-specific tool 'prf_debitos_consultar' uses a descriptive prefix, but the other tools are generic verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) with no consistent pattern or domain alignment. The mixing of specific domain naming with generic platform utility names breaks any coherent convention.
At 7 tools total, the count is reasonable for a server, but it is misleading: only 1 tool actually serves the stated purpose (PRF débitos), while 6 are generic MCP platform utilities (auth, catalog, version info, bug reporting) that could belong to a separate meta-server. For the PRF domain, 1 domain tool feels thin.
The server claims to be about 'Débitos' (debt/fines) from the Polícia Rodoviária Federal, but besides a single 'consultar' (query) tool, there is no coverage for common lifecycle operations (e.g., listing different debt types, checking payment status, getting details, or handling errors). The remaining tools are unrelated platform meta-functions, leaving the stated domain severely under-covered.