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 context about what 'state' means (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools) without contradicting the annotations. It is consistent with a safe, non-mutating operation.
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, well-structured sentence that packs in the essential purpose and content without any filler. It is immediately scannable and front-loaded with the key verb and object.
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, no-parameter read-only info tool, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It does not specify formatting or edge cases, but that is not critical for basic usage. Slightly more detail on how accounts/statuses are represented could push it higher.
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 the schema is empty (100% coverage). With no parameters to describe, the description correctly focuses on the returned information. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 clear action verb ('Returns') and specifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with concrete elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'show_version' by focusing on a state overview.
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 when to use the tool (whenever the current state of the toolkit is needed) and clarifies what will be included. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for typical selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.