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, destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds specificity about what 'state' includes (connection status, account lists, catalog tool counts), going beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with 'Returns the current toolkit state' and then enumerates the components. No fluff, every phrase adds value.
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 with no parameters and no output schema. The description covers what is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool count). Annotations confirm read-only nature. This is sufficient for a basic info tool, though it could mention whether any of these values could be empty or have special states.
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?
No parameters exist (0 required, 0 optional). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description sufficiently explains the output, so no 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate/connect (which perform actions) and show_version (which shows version info).
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 use cases: when you need an overview of the toolkit's installed/connected components. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but it's unambiguous that this is for retrieving state, not for changing it. Sibling names (authenticate, connect) suggest different purposes, so no confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.