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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety info is covered. The description adds valuable context about the return payload details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which is not deducible from annotations alone. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause earns its place by specifying a distinct aspect of the returned state. No fluff or redundancy.
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 read-only status tool, the description fully captures the scope and return contents. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates all key data points an agent would need. Sibling tools are diverse but none overlap with this functionality.
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 the description does not need to explain parameter usage. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than nonexistent inputs.
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 specifies the resource ('current toolkit state') and the exact components covered (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (version info) and authenticate/connect (actions).
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 when to use this tool: for inspecting the overall toolkit state without side effects. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the zero-parameter design and read-only intent make the context clear. Lacks an explicit 'use instead of X' pointer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.