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. The description adds useful detail about what the state includes (MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog counts), which is extra context beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for the response content.
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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists what it includes. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or filler.
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 a simple no-parameter read operation with strong annotations. The description fully explains what the output contains, so the agent knows what information it will receive, and no other context is needed for correct use.
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 the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters because there are none, and it correctly focuses on the output instead.
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?
Description states a specific verb+resource: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and report_bug, which serve different functions.
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 the tool is for inspecting toolkit state, with no mention of exclusions or alternatives. Given the sibling set, its purpose is unambiguous and users can infer when to call it, though explicit guidance like 'use this when you need to check connectivity' is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.