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, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description goes beyond annotations by listing exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), adding valuable behavioral context. No contradictions found.
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 and lists exactly what is returned. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and clear.
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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the user needs to know: what the tool does and what information it provides. There is no complexity that requires further elaboration, and the detail about MCPs and accounts is sufficient for the agent to select and invoke it 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 per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters because there are none, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). This is appropriate.
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 with specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or marketplace, 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 description implies this is for checking toolkit status, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives. While siblings like authenticate or connect have clear different scopes, the description does not explicitly state 'use this to get an overview' or contrast with them. It is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.