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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the output content, such as potential latency, network dependencies, or behavior when MCPs are unavailable. Since the bar is lower with annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.
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 that immediately states the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') followed by a concise enumeration. There is zero wasted wording, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists all key return components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). With no parameters, simple safety annotations, and low operational complexity, this is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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, so a baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it does not attempt to add irrelevant parameter details.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact components returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts connected, catalog tool counts). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like librelink_list_connections or show_version, which have narrower scopes.
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 provides clear context that this tool is for obtaining an overall status snapshot of the toolkit. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the enumeration of returned data implicitly positions it as the general-purpose overview tool, making the intended use apparent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct by function, but librelink_list_accounts and librelink_list_connections are exact aliases, causing confusion. Some glucose tools have overlapping outputs (e.g., librelink_get_current_glucose vs librelink_get_latest_reading), though descriptions help differentiate them.
CGM data tools consistently use the librelink_ prefix, but authentication, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info lack the prefix, mixing conventions. This inconsistency makes the tool set feel disjointed.
With 16 tools, the set is slightly larger than needed, but it covers the main CGM functionalities plus platform utilities. The number is still reasonable and manageable, with each tool serving a specific purpose.
The CGM data tools provide comprehensive read-only access (current, graph, stats, logbook, etc.), but there are no write operations (e.g., setting targets) or historical data beyond ~12-14 days. The inclusion of marketplace and configuration tools feels out of scope but does not leave critical gaps for the stated domain.