get_connectionsWhether Google Calendar, Calendly and Google Drive are connected to OsmO. Status only; connecting and disconnecting happen in the OsmO app.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_connections"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description usefully reinforces this with the "status only" boundary, but it does not disclose the shape of the result (e.g., per-service boolean flags) despite there being no output schema, nor whether results reflect live Google/Calendly state.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the informational scope stated first and the mutation boundary second. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 tool this covers the essentials — which services are checked and that it is read-only. The main gap is return-value semantics: with no output schema, the description should say what the response looks like (a status per provider vs. a connected/disconnected list), which would make the definition fully self-sufficient.
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 zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. A baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.
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 names the exact resource (connection status for Google Calendar, Calendly, and Google Drive) and the consumer (OsmO), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings such as get_settings or get_account_status. The phrasing "Whether ... are connected" is an implicit query rather than a leading verb like "Check," which keeps it just short of maximally crisp.
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?
"Status only; connecting and disconnecting happen in the OsmO app" gives a clear negative boundary — this tool cannot change connection state — which steers the agent away from attempting mutations. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but no sibling in the list performs connections, so the guidance is sufficient in context.
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.