Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| 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 a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral depth: the conditional presence of pending[] and connect_url for different provider-connection states. This goes well beyond the structured metadata with no contradictions present.
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 sentences total, no fluff. The lead sentence states the core purpose, and the second expands into edge cases. 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 parameterless, connection-status tool, the description covers both primary runtime states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and the shape of the response in each. Combined with the rich annotations, this is a very complete package despite the lack of an output schema.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is technically nothing to explain. Per rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4, and the description doesn't introduce any param-related ambiguity.
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?
Description clearly names the action ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'), then enriches with concrete response behavior in different auth states. Distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status and URLs rather than the auth flow itself.
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?
Provides clear context on what the tool returns in both connected and missing-credential scenarios, which signals when to call it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.
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.