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. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data it returns (MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 lists the returned components efficiently. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it describes what is returned in enough detail for an agent to understand the tool's output. Annotations cover behavioral aspects, and no further info is needed.
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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details; it already fully explains what the tool does, and the schema is empty. No additional compensation 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?
The description uses specific verb 'Returns' and clearly defines the resource as 'toolkit state' with detailed components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools). It is distinct from siblings like show_version or connect, which have different purposes.
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?
While the description clearly indicates it is a status/info tool, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. However, the context makes its use case obvious—checking toolkit state—so it meets the baseline without explicit guidance.
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.
authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all touch connection/auth status, and marketplace also handles credential and billing links, so an agent could easily pick the wrong tool. Only sintegra_pr_consultar, report_bug, and show_version are clearly unambiguous.
The set mixes generic English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), noun-style tools (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese verb_noun domain tool (sintegra_pr_consultar). Snake_case is consistent, but there is no predictable action/resource pattern across the set.
Seven tools is not an unreasonable number, but six of them are generic platform/marketplace utilities while only one is actually SINTEGRA-specific. The count is numerically fine yet imbalanced for a server named after a specific data source.
The core SINTEGRA PR consultation capability is present, and the surrounding platform tools cover auth, connection status, billing, and version reporting. The main gap is the absence of any SINTEGRA-specific batch, history, or status operations, but for a single-query consultation service the surface is workable.