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 description doesn't need to restate that. It adds value by detailing the exact nature of the returned information (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations.
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 front-loads the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists what is included. No wasted words or redundancy.
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 no-parameter, read-only info tool, the description is complete: it enumerates exactly what will be returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). No output schema is needed, as the description sufficiently covers the return contents.
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 no parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly implies that no input is needed, and there are no parameters to explain or augment.
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 components (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or show_version, which have different purposes.
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 context is clear: this tool is for fetching overall toolkit status, while siblings handle authentication, connection, marketplace, or version reporting. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but authenticate and connect both deal with authentication/connection, which could cause slight confusion. The rest are clearly differentiated.
Naming is inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), a long descriptive name (pref_ba_salvador_nada_consta_consultar), and compound verbs/nouns (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) break any clear pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable size for a platform server that covers authentication, marketplace search, feedback, and info. Not too few or too many.
The set covers core actions but lacks explicit install/uninstall or management operations for MCPs, relying on marketplace to implicitly handle them. This leaves a notable gap for a full lifecycle.