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, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about exactly what information is returned, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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, front-loaded with the primary action and result ('Returns the current toolkit state'), followed by a clear list of included details. No wasted words, perfectly concise.
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, parameterless read-only tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No output schema is present, but the description suffices for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies. It correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates the contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.
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 makes the tool's use case obvious (when you need toolkit state), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like show_version. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
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 tools are mostly distinct, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection/status information, and authenticate overlaps with connect around authentication flow. The marketplace tool is a catch-all with many sub-actions, but as a named tool it is unique.
Naming conventions are mixed: single verbs (authenticate, connect), noun tools (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb_noun in English (report_bug, show_version), and one Portuguese verb_noun (sintegra_ccc_consultar). This inconsistency makes the tool list feel chaotic and hard to predict.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server is named 'Sintegra CCC' and only one tool (sintegra_ccc_consultar) actually provides the core domain capability. The other six are generic MCP.AI platform utilities, making the tool set feel misaligned with the server's stated purpose.
For a Sintegra CCC server, the surface is severely lacking: only one consultation tool exists, with no additional domain operations or auxiliary features. While the platform-management tools are complete for their own domain, they do not contribute to the stated Sintegra CCC purpose, leaving the domain coverage nearly empty.