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, covering the safety profile of the operation. The description adds detail about what state is returned, which is useful but does not go beyond what annotations already establish regarding behavior.
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 that front-loads the purpose and packs the key return elements into a concise list. No unnecessary words or repeated information.
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 zero-parameter read-only introspection tool, this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what information will be returned—installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts—so the agent can decide whether to call it and how to interpret results.
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 and the input schema is fully documented, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately focuses on the output contents instead, which is the only semantically relevant information for an agent.
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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on specific Protheus entities or connection actions like authenticate and 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 gives clear context for when this tool is useful: whenever an agent needs a snapshot of the toolkit's installation and connection state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the informational nature of the listed outputs makes the intended usage 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.
Each protheus_* tool targets a distinct ERP entity or API, and descriptions explain the resource and key arguments, so an agent can usually pick the right one. The main ambiguities are the generic protheus_api, which overlaps with every dedicated reader, and the trio protheus_catalogo/protheus_diagnostico/protheus_modulos, all of which are about API/module availability.
The domain tools consistently use the protheus_ prefix in snake_case with a descriptive resource suffix, which is predictable once the pattern is recognized. There are minor deviations such as protheus_list_accounts using an English verb and the platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, show_version, toolkit_info) not following the protheus_ prefix at all.
32 tools is above the threshold where a tool list becomes heavy for agents to scan, even though the ERP domain is broad. The set could be split into a focused Protheus reader plus a platform-management server, or several entities could be combined behind parameterized tools.
The read-only surface covers a wide range of common Protheus areas (customers, products, stock, sales, production, pricing, CRM) and protheus_api with catalogo/diagnostico allows access to additional official/custom read routes. However, there are no create/update/delete tools at all, and major ERP areas such as financial movements and HR are absent, so mutation workflows dead-end in this server.