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, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds value by specifying what kind of information is returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like response latency, freshness, or whether it reflects live state. Since annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists the key information types. There is zero redundancy, and every part adds value. It is highly efficient.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns, and it does so by listing the key components. It does not specify the exact format (e.g., whether it's a list of objects, a map, etc.), but for a simple info tool this is adequate. Combined with clear annotations, the description is sufficiently complete.
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, so the schema provides complete coverage trivially. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain anything about params. No additional meaning 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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates the specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a clear verb+resource with specific scope, and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace' which serve different purposes.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or alternatives. While it is clearly a read-only info tool, the description does not offer context such as 'Use this to check connection status before calling other tools' or similar. It only states what it does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.