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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the returned state components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the bare annotations. It does not contradict any annotations.
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 immediately states the primary purpose, followed by a concise list of returned elements. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 has no parameters, no output schema, and simple informational scope, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what state is returned and the categories of data included. The presence of strong annotations further reduces the need for extra safety caveats.
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 effectively 100% (empty properties object). Per the baseline for tools with no parameters, a 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to explain and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema detail.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a well-defined resource ('current toolkit state') and elaborates on exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like show_version, which presumably only reports version info.
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 the tool is for inspecting overall toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like connect, authenticate, or show_version. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the usage context is only implied by the nature of the 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.