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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description enriches this by detailing exactly what state information is returned (MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of the return content.
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 that is front-loaded with the verb 'Returns' and packs all relevant details efficiently. No wasted words; every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail for an agent to understand its exact purpose and expected return. The scope of the tool is fully covered without any noticeable gaps.
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 fully compensates by explaining what information the tool provides, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function despite the absence of parameters.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly names the resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact information provided (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like connect, authenticate, or show_version.
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 clearly implies that this tool is for querying toolkit state, which is distinct from the action-oriented siblings (connect, authenticate). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others or mention exclusions, though the context signals make the intended use evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.