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, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by detailing exactly what state will be returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, counts), which helps an agent anticipate the tool's output without needing further calls.
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 core purpose and then lists specific return elements. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary words. It is concise yet comprehensive.
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, no nested objects), the description covers all essential aspects of what the tool does and what it returns. It could optionally mention whether the information is real-time or cached, but this is not critical for basic usage. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to decide to call it.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to compensate. No parameter semantics are relevant here.
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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource ('current toolkit state'). It enumerates the exact pieces of information provided (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts), which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate' that involve state changes.
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 use case: to inspect the toolkit state. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions (e.g., 'use this before authentication' or 'for connection issues, use connect'). The usage context is implied but not explicitly guided.
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.