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 mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context by emphasizing 'current' state and detailing exactly what aspects are reported, making side effects and behavior reasonably transparent.
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 immediately leads with the primary action and then enlists the relevant output categories. It contains no redundant or throwaway words and is easy to parse at a glance.
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 zero-parameter, zero-schema tool, the description fully tells the agent what will be returned: installed MCPs, connection status, per-MCP account connections, and catalog tool counts. There is no output schema, but the description compensates sufficiently by enumerating the major content areas.
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 and the schema also specifies an empty object, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for parameter coverage gaps.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with a concrete list of fields included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This provides strong differentiation from siblings like show_version and search_tools.
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 clearly signals when to use this tool: when the agent needs a snapshot of the currently installed/connected toolkit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specified output scope provides adequate contextual guidance for selecting this tool over the listed siblings.
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 set has major overlap: `marketplace` and `search_tools` both offer search/describe/invoke catalog actions, making it unclear which to call. `report_bug` is also called out as a capability inside `marketplace`, blurring whether that tool is the action or the top-level one.
All names are lowercase with underscores, but they mix verb-oriented names (`authenticate`, `connect`, `report_bug`) with noun-oriented names (`marketplace`, `search_tools`) and no consistent verb_noun pattern. `show_version` and `toolkit_info` are similarly status-like but follow different naming styles.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range and the count itself is not problematic. However, the `marketplace` tool is overloaded with many sub-capabilities and `search_tools` duplicates part of it, so the effective scope feels less clean than the raw count suggests.
The main workflows are covered: authentication, connection status, catalog search, account/toolkit state, and bug reporting. Missing pieces like an obvious way to uninstall/disconnect or list callable tools are hidden inside `marketplace`, but these are workable gaps rather than fatal ones.