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 safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact contents of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not introduce ambiguity or 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?
A single sentence that immediately states the action and the key output details. Zero filler, perfectly front-loaded, and every clause adds value.
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 read-only query with no parameters glaringly missing, and annotations cover safety. The description fully specifies what the user gets back (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), which is all that is needed for an agent to decide to call it. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the content.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description carries no param-specific info. Per the rubric, zero parameters give a baseline of 4. The description is appropriate since there is nothing to explain.
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' with a clear resource 'current toolkit state' and enumerates exactly what it includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented rather than informational.
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 purpose is obvious (read-only state inspection), and it is implicitly the go-to tool for overviewing the toolkit. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it clear when to use it. A slight deduction for not stating 'when not to use' or naming alternative tools for getting specific info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.