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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns several types of state info, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose any additional side effects or behaviors beyond what annotations indicate. No contradiction.
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, concise sentence that lists all the key information points without any filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and clearly enumerates the return content.
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 has zero parameters, no output schema, and the annotations cover safety, the description is complete enough. It specifies what state details are returned, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it. No additional context seems necessary.
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 coverage is 100% (n/a). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. It does explain what the output contains, which is the key semantic information.
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 the tool returns the current toolkit state, listing specific resources: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' and 'authenticate'.
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 for inspecting the toolkit state, which is clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the simplicity of the tool, the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.