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 covered. The description adds context about the returned information (connection status, accounts, etc.) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the main output ('Returns the current toolkit state'), and each clause adds specific, relevant detail. There is no redundant information 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?
For a simple, parameterless read-only tool with comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know. It lists the return contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) in the absence of an output schema, making the tool's behavior complete and predictable.
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 the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters; the description does not need to explain parameter semantics because 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's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rdstation_list_accounts or connect, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 usage by describing what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or contrast it with alternatives. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool's purpose.
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.
The three rdstation_contacts_* tools and three rdstation_webhooks_* tools have identical descriptions listing the same set of actions, making them indistinguishable. An agent cannot determine which tool performs which action based on the descriptions alone.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: domain-specific tools use `rdstation_<noun>_<action>` (rdstation_contacts_get) but also `rdstation_<action>_<noun>` (rdstation_list_accounts), and some tools lack the domain prefix (authenticate, marketplace). The pattern varies across the set.
At 15 tools, the count is at the upper bound of reasonable scope. However, many tools are redundant (e.g., three tools for contacts actions) and could be consolidated, making the set feel heavier than necessary.
The RD Station domain covers contacts, webhooks, events, and accounts. However, contacts lack a delete action, and there is no tool to list contacts. The webhooks set is complete (create, list, delete) but missing an update. Minor gaps exist.