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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, covering safety. The description adds what information is returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts) but does not add behavioral traits like auth requirements or rate limits. Given annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not outstanding.
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 front-loads the core purpose (returns toolkit state) and lists specific contents without unnecessary fluff. Perfectly sized.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It lists the key components (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the output. It could mention format or structure, but for a zero-parameter, read-only info tool, this is adequate.
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?
There are zero parameters intended for this toolaine, so semantic coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful for interpretation beyond the empty schema.
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 explicitly states the tool returns the current toolkit state and enumerates the specific contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource construction that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version (version info) and connect (establishing connections).
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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to inspect toolkit state) by enumerating its outputs against the context of sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the full 'when-not' guidance.
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.