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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds transparency about the content (connection status, accounts) but does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as potential delays, whether it refreshes the status, or whether it reports cached or live data. Since annotations cover the key behavioral aspects, a 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Returns' and then enumerates the specific types of information. It is concise, informative, and wastes no words.
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, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the key information returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). A slight gap is the lack of detail on the return format, but for a state lookup with no parameters, this description is sufficient.
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, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter info, but with no parameters there is nothing to explain. Baseline 4 is justified because the description adequately conveys the output content, which compensates for the lack 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 what the tool does: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates the specific information provided (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). It distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which are action-oriented, while this is an informational read.
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 implicitly indicates when to use it (when you need the current state), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives such as show_version. It doesn't explain how this differs from show_version, which might also return state information, creating ambiguity.
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.