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?
The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the specific information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). However, it does not mention any additional behavioral aspects like response format, performance considerations, or any side effects beyond the read-only nature already covered by annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint).
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 efficiently enumerates the returned information without redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes specific details, making it easy to digest.
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 that the tool has no parameters, a straightforward output, and annotations indicating safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is complete in conveying what it does. It lacks a formal output schema, but the description adequately summarizes the return content, so no gaps are evident.
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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description explains the tool's output intent, which is the primary way it adds meaning beyond the schema. With zero parameters, the description compensates by clarifying what the tool reports about the toolkit state.
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 what the tool returns: the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific, descriptive purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.
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 that this tool is for inspecting the toolkit state without side effects, which is reinforced by annotations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, such as 'authenticate' or 'connect', but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer use cases like checking connection status or account validity.
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.