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. The description adds valuable context about the return payload, specifying what information is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the simple annotation hints.
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 action and resource, then enumerates the key data points. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition.
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?
Despite the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects an agent would need to know about this state-inspection tool: what MCPs are installed, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is complete for a read-only info tool, though it could technically mention that it returns no other unrelated state.
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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the return value instead of padding with irrelevant 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 purpose: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific data points (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope distinguishes it from sibling action-oriented tools like connect and 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 usage for inspecting toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. Without an output schema or explicit exclusions, the agent must infer that this is the go-to tool for status checks.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and authenticate overlaps with connect. The ANTT query tool is clearly separate, but the platform utilities blur together somewhat.
Naming is inconsistent: the ANTT tool uses a long snake_case prefix, while others are single verbs or noun phrases (connect, marketplace, show_version). No clear pattern across the set.
Seven tools are reasonable in number, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated ANTT domain. The single domain tool is buried among meta-tools, making the set feel bloated and off-purpose.
The ANTT consultation tool covers its core lookup well, but only one operation is offered—no related queries (e.g., vehicle, company, or route checks) or additional domain actions. The platform tools are complete in themselves but don't contribute to the domain's completeness.