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 are rich (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) and the description is consistent with these — no contradiction. The description adds value beyond annotations by defining the precise contents of the 'state' being reported (MCPs, statuses, accounts, counts). Could theoretically add nuance about data freshness or auth requirements, but for a state-inspection getter with strong annotations, this is solid.
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 front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') followed by a colon-delimited list of distinct, non-redundant state components. Every element in the list earns its place — no fluff, no repetition. Properly scannable for an agent.
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 simple 0-parameter, read-only info tool with comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and what data it exposes. The complexity is low, and the description meets that bar completely. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately shoulders the burden of explaining return contents, which it does effectively.
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 0 parameters, so the rubric's baseline is 4. With no parameters, there is nothing more the description could meaningfully add; a 0-param read-only getter doesn't need parameter documentation.
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+resource ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the exact scope of state returned (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like `show_version` (specifically version info) and `connect`/`authenticate` (which establish connections). No ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 read-only inspection purpose is self-evident, providing clear context for when to use this tool (to inspect current toolkit/connection state). It implicitly contrasts with mutation-style siblings like `connect` and `authenticate`. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., when to choose `show_version` over this), which would be the only reason not to give a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.