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 provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, non-destructive nature is clear. The description adds context about the output structure when all providers are connected vs. missing credentials, which is useful. However, it does not explain what happens if some providers are connected and others are not, or the exact format of per-install URLs, leaving some ambiguity.
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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes conditional behavior without excessive detail. Slight deduction for not specifying the shape of 'connect_url' or 'per-install URLs', but the structure is efficient.
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?
The tool is simple with no required parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need to document parameters or return types. It covers the key scenario of all-connected vs. missing credentials, but omits edge cases like partial connectivity or the exact JSON structure of the response. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but could be more explicit about the full set of possible states.
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 no parameters, there is nothing to document, and the context signal indicates 100% schema description coverage (trivially, as there are no parameters). The description focuses on the return semantics, which is appropriate. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is reasonable.
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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than action. It specifies the behavior under different conditions (all connected vs. missing credentials), which is more specific than a mere 'check status'.
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 for checking connection status, which is a read-only operation, aligned with the annotations. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info', leaving the agent to infer when to use this tool over others. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.