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 provide readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context about what data is returned (MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), going beyond the annotations to set expectations for the response content. 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 primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific components. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema) and the description fully covers what the agent will receive: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. Combined with the safety annotations, this is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details, and the schema confirms an empty property set, making the tool straightforward to invoke.
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 returns the current toolkit state, specifying the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented.
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 usage when an agent needs an overview of the toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The context is clear enough but lacks direct 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but authenticate and connect both relate to connection/auth and could cause confusion. The marketplace tool is broad but self-contained.
Naming is inconsistent: bare verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and one Portuguese noun-verb (veiculo_fipe_consultar). No uniform pattern or language.
The raw count of 7 is reasonable, but the toolset mixes generic platform management tools with a single vehicle-specific lookup, making the toolkit feel unfocused relative to the server's stated FIPE purpose.
The core FIPE consultation is covered via plate/chassis lookup with market value. Minor gaps like historical values or batch queries exist but are not essential for the primary workflow.