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?
The description goes beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations by detailing the different return states (authenticated vs. missing credentials) and the URLs provided. It does not mention any side effects or error scenarios, but since the tool is read-only and idempotent, the annotations cover core behavioral expectations, and the description adds useful outcome specifics.
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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that first state the overall function and then explain the two possible return scenarios. It is easy to read and contains no unnecessary details.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context by explaining the main return states and URL paths. It does not cover edge cases like network errors or partial connectivity, but for a simple status check, it is reasonably complete and self-contained.
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 no parameters (empty schema), so there is nothing to add. According to the rubric, with full schema coverage, the baseline score is 3; the description does not need to elaborate on parameters that do not 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 purpose: returning connection status and URLs. It distinguishes between the two outcomes (authenticated vs. missing credentials) and specifies the exact data returned, making the tool's function 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 the tool is for checking connection status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'authenticate' or other sibling tools. There is no guidance on conditions that warrant using this tool versus others, so usage context is only indirectly inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.