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 adds valuable context by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected for a read-only info tool, so this is appropriate.
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 main purpose and then lists the specific information returned. There is no fluff, and every part adds value. It is concise and well-structured.
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), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool does and what it returns. It lists the exact categories of information, making it complete for its intended use. The presence of annotations also reduces the need for further behavioral detail.
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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the schema has no properties. The description effectively communicates what the tool does without needing parameter details.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report status.
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, which is evident from its read-only nature and content listing. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given its role as an informational tool, the context is clear enough without explicit exclusions.
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.