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, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond these hints by specifying exactly what state is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), enriching the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.
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 verb 'Returns' and immediately lists the key content. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It comprehensively describes what the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making it complete for this simple tool.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is no parameter information to add. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters since none exist.
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 specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like connect or authenticate, 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or preferred scenarios. However, its purpose as an informational read-only tool is implicit, so usage is implied but not 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, connect checks status, codex_image_generate creates images, and marketplace is a meta-catalog. There is minor overlap between connect and codex_image_subscription both showing status, but detailed descriptions mitigate confusion. Marketplace is broad but self-contained.
Tool names follow mixed conventions: verb-only (authenticate, connect), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), prefixed with codex_image_ (generate, subscription), and noun-only (marketplace, toolkit_info). No consistent pattern across the set, making it hard to predict tool names.
With 8 tools, the count is within the typical 3-15 range and not excessive. The scope is broad (image generation plus platform utilities), but each tool has a defined role, so the number feels justified for a meta-toolkit server.
For the image generation domain, only generate and subscription are present, lacking image history or management features. However, the marketplace tool can dynamically fill gaps by invoking other MCPs, and the core generate workflow is covered. Platform utilities like reporting and versioning are complete.