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, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds value by specifying what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention potential latency or data freshness, but for a read-only info tool, this is adequate.
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 purpose and lists the key output components. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise and informative.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool returns and the scope of the state. It could mention whether the state is real-time or cached, but for a toolkit info tool, this is a minor gap. The description covers the essential information an agent needs.
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 description doesn't need to explain any. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description fully explains what the tool returns. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description compensates for the lack of parameter details by explaining the output.
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, listing specific elements: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report state.
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 this is a read-only informational tool for checking toolkit state, which is clear from the context. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that usage context is clear. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the tool's role as a status reporter is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.