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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds concrete behavioral context: what data is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). This enriches beyond annotations without contradicting them. Minor gap: no mention of possible errors or pagination, but for a zero-parameter info call this is acceptable.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary purpose and then lists the key elements. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's role.
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?
Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only informational tool), the description fully covers what the tool returns. It explicitly lists the components of the toolkit state, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the outcome without needing an output schema. The low complexity does not demand more.
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 schema coverage is 100% (there are no parameters to describe). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. It effectively conveys that no input is required.
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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'current toolkit state', then enumerates specific contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (which focuses on version only) and marketplace (which likely lists available 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 implies usage for obtaining an overview of the toolkit state. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, the resource is clearly a general info-read, and siblings like authenticate/connect are obviously for actions. It lacks explicit exclusion guidance, so not a 5.
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.