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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, reducing the burden. The description adds valuable context about the return values (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and explains conditional behavior based on credential presence, which goes beyond the annotation metadata and helps the agent predict outcomes.
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 succinct sentences that front-load the main purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') and then briefly explain the two possible outcomes. There is no verbosity or redundancy, and every sentence adds meaningful information.
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 is simple with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the two main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what fields are returned. It does not cover partial connection states, but this may be outside the tool's scope. Overall, it provides enough detail for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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?
Since there are zero parameters, the schema trivially covers all (100% coverage). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details because none exist, so no additional semantic info is needed.
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 returns connection status and URLs, with specific details about output when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' which handles authentication rather than 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 provides clear context for when the status is expected (all connected vs. missing credentials) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It implies usage for checking connection status but lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance for sibling tools like authenticate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.