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. The description adds specific behavioral detail about what the toolkit state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but annotations cover the safety profile.
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 conveys all necessary information without waste. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.
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's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema) and the detailed description of return content, the tool is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly. It does not describe return format or failure modes, but these are less critical for a read-only status endpoint.
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 an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there are no parameters 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 clearly states 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates the specific data points returned (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented.
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 when one wants to inspect toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_version. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the 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.