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 enhances transparency by specifying exactly what aspects of the state are returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), providing more behavioral detail than annotations alone. 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, grammatically efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and lists the key details without any fluff. No unnecessary words or redundant information.
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?
The tool is simple (no params, no output schema, no nested objects) and fully describes its output in the description. The annotations cover safety characteristics, and the description covers the content of the state returned. Nothing is missing for the agent to use this tool 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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (trivially, as there is nothing to cover). Per the scoring baseline for tools with no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist.
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 explicitly states the verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state' with a detailed list of contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate, which perform actions rather than report state.
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 makes it clear that this tool provides state information, which implicitly signals when to use it (e.g., to check connections or accounts). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, though that is less critical for a simple inspection tool.
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.