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, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what information is returned, giving the agent a concrete expectation of 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?
A single, information-dense sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and then lists the relevant details. Every phrase earns its place, and there is 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?
Given the absence of parameters and output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what the agent should expect. It lists all major elements of the returned state, making the tool's behavior sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 takes no parameters, so the schema is fully self-explanatory. The description genuinely supplements by explaining what the returned state contains, which satisfies the baseline for minimal parameter semantics.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the exact resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the contained details: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or marketplace.
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 frames the tool as a way to inspect the current toolkit state, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the context is clear enough that no exclusions are needed.
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 clear, distinct purposes, especially the procfy_list_* tools which each target a different entity. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) are also distinguishable. However, the marketplace tool is multi-purpose with different actions, which could cause some confusion, but descriptions help.
Procfy-specific tools follow a consistent 'procfy_verb_noun' pattern, but platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) lack a prefix and mix verb and noun forms (e.g., marketplace is a noun). This inconsistency in naming conventions across the set reduces clarity.
With 16 tools, it's slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but still reasonable for a domain covering multiple entities (accounts, bank accounts, categories, etc.). The inclusion of platform tools (6) contributes to the count, but they are necessary for the server's operation.
The server provides extensive list operations and a create for transactions, but lacks update/delete for transactions and CRUD for other entities (categories, contacts, etc.). No tool for getting individual entities (except transaction and bank account balance) or creating/modifying them. Significant gaps for a full lifecycle.