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, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by emphasizing that the state is 'current' and detailing what aspects are included, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 one front-loaded sentence that states the main purpose first and then lists the specific data facets. There is no redundant or filler wording, so every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent will learn: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrants a baseline of 4, and the description adds relevant context about what the call reports.
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 identifies the tool as a status/inspection operation: it 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates the concrete contents (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and 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 implies the tool is for inspecting toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any conditions where a different tool should be chosen. It is clear enough contextually but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.
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.
Many tools are near-duplicates, such as iclips_financial_entries_get/list, iclips_pieces_get/list, iclips_pieces_write_create/update/checklist, and iclips_workflow_templates_get/list, all sharing essentially the same description. authenticate and connect also overlap on session/connection status, so an agent must rely on brittle naming conventions rather than clear semantic boundaries.
The iClips tools mostly follow iclips_<resource>_<action>, but the server mixes noun-only names like iclips_financial_accounts and marketplace, camelCase platform names like toolkit_info and show_version, and artificial get/list flattened duplicates. The pattern is only predictable within a subset of the tool list, not across the entire server.
At 30 tools, the set is over-inflated for its actual scope: most are flattened get/list or write-action variants of roughly a dozen underlying iClips operations, plus six unrelated platform utilities. The domain could be cleanly served in about half this many tools without losing functionality.
Jobs and pieces have reasonable CRUD coverage, but there is no client/group or destination master lookup even though clientId is required to create a job and destination_id filters financial entries. Job pieces and tasks also lack delete operations, and financial categories are not enumerable, leaving noticeable dead ends for common workflows.