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, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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 main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific components. No wasted words.
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 has no parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is complete enough. It clearly enumerates what the return value contains, which is the main thing an agent needs to know. It could mention that it's a snapshot/read-only operation, but the annotations already cover that.
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 description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output content rather than 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented.
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 this is a read-only informational tool to be used when checking the toolkit's state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, given the sibling tools are all action-oriented (authenticate, connect, etc.), the usage context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.