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, clearly establishing a safe read-only operation. The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the specific state categories returned, giving the agent an accurate picture of the output contents. No contradictory behavioral notes are present.
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, front-loaded sentence that communicates what, why, and the content scope in a concise list form. Every phrase earns its place and there is no fluff or redundant metadata.
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 informational read, the description is complete. It lists the exact categories of state that will be returned, which is sufficient given the read-only annotations and the absence of complex input/output schemas or nested objects. The agent has enough context to call the tool and interpret the results with high confidence.
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 takes zero parameters, so no parameter-specific documentation is needed. The schema coverage is effectively complete, and the description focuses appropriately on return value composition rather than trying to describe nonexistent 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 identifies what the tool returns: the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It uses specific, concrete language that differentiates it from siblings like show_version (version info) and connect (establishing connections).
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 a diagnostic/status-reporting use case, making it seems obvious that an agent would call this to inspect the environment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as show_version or marketplace. There is no direct mention of when not to use it or which sibling is the better choice for related needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.