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 mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing exactly what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the output. No contradictions.
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 immediately states the primary purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the specific components. Every word contributes to understanding, with no fluff or repetition.
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 no output schema and only read-only annotations, the description fully explains what the tool returns: the toolkit state with installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. There are no parameters or side-effect details needed, making the description complete for an agent to use 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 schema coverage is trivially 100% and no parameter descriptions are needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to add anything here.
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: returning the current toolkit state. It specifies the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), distinguishing it from sibling actions like connect or authenticate, which are operational rather than informational.
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: it is for retrieving state information. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the clear purpose and sibling tool names (e.g., connect, authenticate) provide enough context for an agent to choose this tool when needing status.
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.