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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) but doesn't mention potential latency or that data might be stale. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate because it adds some value but not much beyond the annotations.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific components it covers. Every element earns its place, with zero wasted words. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.
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, and the description covers what it returns in enough detail. It lists all key aspects of the state. However, it doesn't mention whether the results include errors or partial data, but given the simplicity, a 4 is justified. It's complete for a status-inquiry tool.
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 0 parameters, so there's no schema to cover. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description clearly explains what the tool returns, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool. No additional parameter description is needed.
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 what the tool does: it returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb-resource pair ('returns the current toolkit state') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' (which likely shows version info) and 'authenticate' (which handles auth).
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 in contexts where you need an overview of the toolkit's setup, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide alternatives. Given it's a read-only info tool with no parameters, it's clear when it's appropriate, but explicit exclusions are absent. Still, the tool's nature makes usage obvious, so a 4 is warranted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.