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 description goes beyond the annotations by detailing the content of the returned state, including specific data points. It confirms that the tool is read-only and idempotent, consistent with annotations, but adds clarity about what the state includes. No additional side effects or caveats are mentioned, but the description is transparent about the data returned.
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, concise sentence that lists the key information returned. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy to understand.
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 description provides a clear picture of what the tool returns without an output schema. It mentions the main categories of information, which is sufficient for a user to know what to expect. It does not detail the format, but for a simple state query, this is acceptable.
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 no parameters, and the description does not need to explain any input. The schema is empty, so coverage is trivially 100%, and the description does not add anything about parameters because there are none. This is appropriate.
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 that the tool returns current toolkit state and enumerates the specific aspects: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions like authentication or connection.
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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply describes what it returns, without indicating scenarios such as before connecting or when troubleshooting state. Thus, usage guidance is not provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.