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. The description adds valuable context by specifying exactly what is included in the state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the basic safety profile. No contradictions exist.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb 'Returns' and immediately provides specific details. Every word contributes to clarity, with no fluff 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 zero-parameter, read-only info tool with strong annotations, the description fully captures the tool's behavior and output. It covers the main aspects an agent would need to know, though it could theoretically mention error behavior or return format, but that seems unnecessary for this simple tool.
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 description does not need to explain any. It adds meaning by describing the output, which is sufficient given the absence of parameters.
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 it 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific data points (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and easily distinguishable from siblings like connect or authenticate, which handle 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 usage whenever toolkit state information is needed, but it does not provide explicit context about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the simplicity of the tool makes the implication sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.