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 known. The description adds behavioral detail beyond those annotations by specifying exactly what data is returned (MCP installations, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It does not contradict annotations, and it provides meaningful context about the tool's output.
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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. No word is wasted; it literally enumerates each piece of information returned, making it easy for an agent to grasp quickly.
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 absence of parameters and output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. The mention of 'catalog tools' is self-explanatory in context, and the sibling tools list does not suggest missing functionality. The description is complete for a simple read-only state inspection.
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 schema already provides complete coverage (100%). The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and no additional parameter information is necessary.
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 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates the specific contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (version info) and connect (act of connecting) by focusing on the overall state rather than a single action.
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 provides clear context: it's a read-only tool for inspecting the toolkit state. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of show_version for connection details'). The context is clear enough that exclusions are not critical, but a more explicit pointer would have strengthened this dimension.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.