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 the tool read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world. The description adds valuable context by specifying the returned state fields (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog counts), which is not available from annotations or an output schema. It does not describe exact formatting or potential edge cases, but this is sufficient for a simple inspection tool.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence front-loads the action ('Returns') and the resource ('current toolkit state'), then uses a colon to enumerate the key contents. No redundant words or filler; every element earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, read-only state tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists what is returned and the annotations cover safety semantics. There are no complex inputs, prerequisites, or side effects to disclose, so nothing important is missing.
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 the schema covers everything trivially. The description correctly focuses on outputs rather than inputs, and no additional parameter explanation is warranted.
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's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates the exact content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like connect, authenticate, and show_version, which address different concerns.
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 state, including MCP connections and catalog exposure. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when to prefer an alternative (e.g., show_version), so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.