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 description doesn't need to repeat those. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the specific pieces of state returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools count), which goes beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction with annotations.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and efficiently enumerates the returned components without redundancy. Every word contributes to the understanding of the tool's function.
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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools count). It doesn't specify the exact format or structure, but for a simple state-report tool, this is sufficient. The sibling tools and annotations provide additional context, so the description is contextually 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 description cannot add parameter meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and any explanation would be unnecessary.
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 states exactly what the tool does: returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like show_version by focusing on MCP state details.
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 clearly defines what the tool returns, giving implied context for when to use it (checking toolkit state). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_version or marketplace, nor any exclusions. The purpose is clear but usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.