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 indicate readOnly and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for transparency is lower. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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, concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action 'Returns'.
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's simplicity (no parameters, simple return), the description is complete. It lists all the key aspects of the returned state, and no additional context is needed.
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 there is nothing to explain. The schema covers this implicitly, and the description does not omit any parameter-related information. Perfect score as the coverage is complete.
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 purpose: returning the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is a specific verb+resource combination and is distinct from sibling tools like show_version.
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 when to use the tool (whenever you need an overview of the toolkit state), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. However, given the tool's simplicity and uniqueness among siblings, the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.