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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety expectations. The description adds useful context about the returned state details, going beyond the 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 sentence, front-loaded with 'Returns', and lists specific aspects of the toolkit state without any wasted words.
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 strong annotations, the description fully covers behavior and return contents. No output schema is present, but the description itself sufficiently explains what the caller will receive.
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 adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which is the only semantically relevant aspect.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly enumerates the resource and content: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate.
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 implies when to use the tool (to inspect toolkit state) without explicit exclusions or alternative mentions. However, given the distinct sibling tools, the context is sufficiently clear.
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.
Most tools are distinct, but marketplace is a catch-all that overlaps with report_bug and toolkit_info, and connect/toolkit_info both provide connection status. Descriptions help but some ambiguity remains.
All names use snake_case, but patterns vary: bare verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), object_verb (suframa_consultar), and pure nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). The mix is readable but not consistent.
Seven tools is a reasonable count and within the 3-15 range, but marketplace is a monolithic mega-tool packing many sub-operations, inflating the effective surface. The combination of platform utilities and a single domain tool also reduces focus.
For a server named 'Suframa', the only domain-specific tool is suframa_consultar, a single CNPJ lookup. Missing any other Suframa-related operations means the domain surface is severely incomplete. The rest are generic platform tools unrelated to Suframa.