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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the exact information returned (MCPs, statuses, accounts, counts), which is 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?
Single sentence that is densely informative, no filler. Front-loaded with the key action and then details the return content.
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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned. It could specify exact response structure or field names, but given simplicity and annotations, it is complete enough.
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)Skip 0 params baseline is 4. No parameter semantics needed. The description is sufficient.
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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like connect 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 function clear (querying toolkit state) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. Context is clear enough that an agent would know to call this for status checks, but no exclusions are stated.
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 purpose of each tool is not clearly distinct: 'authenticate', 'connect', and 'marketplace' all deal with connection/authentication aspects, and 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' both involve token/credential handling. 'marketplace' also includes a prompt library, blurring boundaries with a hypothetical prompt tool, and 'connect' overlaps with 'toolkit_info' in reporting connection status. This creates high ambiguity for an agent selecting the right tool.
Most tool names are verbs in imperative form (authenticate, connect, show_version, report_bug), but there is a mix: 'marketplace' is a noun, 'toolkit_info' uses a noun+noun structure, and 'sintegra_ro_consultar' breaks the English pattern with Portuguese. While many follow a simple verb, the lack of a consistent verb_noun pattern and the Portuguese exception reduce consistency.
With 7 tools, the count is within the typical recommended range and each tool appears to serve a distinct functional area (auth, connectivity, catalog, feedback, version, a domain-specific query, and toolkit info). However, some tools have overlapping responsibilities, making the count feel slightly bloated; a more consolidated design could reduce it without major loss.
The server appears to focus on a Brazilian tax query (SINTEGRA RO) but only has a single query tool, lacking operations for managing query history, reporting results, or handling errors in a structured way. The platform-level tools are generic but cover market/installation, yet there is no explicit tool for managing credentials beyond 'authenticate' and 'connect', which may leave gaps for full lifecycle management.