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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat these. It adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned—installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts—which is useful contextual information beyond the annotations. No contradictions observed.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific components returned. No redundant or filler content; every word adds value.
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 read-only with no parameters and no output schema. The description lists all key aspects of the returned state, which is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's output. It doesn't mention error handling or latency, but these are not essential for a simple info tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.
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, so per the rule, baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none to document. The schema is empty, and the description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate.
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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and details what that entails (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It is distinct from siblings which perform actions like connect or authenticate.
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 usage for inspecting toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like show_version or marketplace. However, its purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to call it. No exclusions are mentioned, but none are needed for an info 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.