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 this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers safety. The description adds useful detail about what state it returns (installed MCPs, connections, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond annotations. It does not describe return formatting or whether the data might be stale, but the core behavior is transparent.
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: the verb 'Returns' leads with the action, followed by a colon and a clear list of delivered information. Every item in the list adds value with no redundant phrasing or filler.
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 (no parameters, no output schema, a straightforward informational purpose), the description adequately grounds an agent's expectations by naming all content of the returned state. It could mention potential prerequisites like prior authentication, but since it returns the current state regardless, this is not a significant gap.
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 covers this completely (empty properties). Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description doesn't need to add parameter info, and it doesn't. It does clarify that the tool takes no input by implication, which is sufficient.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating the exact content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version (version info) and marketplace (available integrations).
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 the tool should be used when an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's current connections and MCP availability. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as show_version or marketplace, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.