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 signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful return-value context—the nature of the reported state and the specific fields included. This matches the annotations and provides more detail than structured metadata alone.
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 sentence, front-loads the action and object, and uses a concise enumerative structure for the returned state. Every phrase contributes meaningful information without repetition or unnecessary detail.
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?
For a parameterless, read-only status tool without an output schema, the description is complete by specifying what the edges will contain: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It gives an agent sufficient information to decide whether and when to call the tool.
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 input schema has zero parameters and is empty, so the baseline is 4; schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to document parameters because there are none to document.
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') and names the precise resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts connected, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling actions such as authenticate, connect, and report_bug, which perform different operations.
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 makes it obvious that this is the read-only status query for overviewing toolkit connectivity and accounts, especially in contrast to mutating siblings like connect and authenticate. It does not explicitly state alternative or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.