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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the exact contents of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This gives the agent a clear idea of what to expect without repeating the annotation information.
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 is front-loaded with the core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') followed by the specific data items. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and easy to parse.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no side effects, no output schema required for such a straightforward read operation), the description fully covers what the tool returns. It lists all the key components of the state, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. The description is complete for its context.
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. With no parameters, there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly implies that no input is required.
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 purpose: returns the current toolkit state. It specifies the exact information included (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts), making it distinct from siblings like 'show_version' (just version) and 'authenticate' (auth flow). The verb 'returns' is explicit and the resource is well-defined.
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 by stating what it returns, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or comparisons to sibling tools. For a simple info tool this might be acceptable, but explicit guidance on when to call it (e.g., 'use this to check connectivity before other operations') would be helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.