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=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the response structure (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url) under different conditions, which goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect without making a request. It does not contradict annotations.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') and immediately follows with conditional specifics. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main states (all connected vs missing credentials) and describes the response fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). It could specify the full JSON shape or mention partially connected states, but for a simple status tool it is adequately complete.
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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100% (empty schema). Per instructions, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and it appropriately focuses on the response behavior.
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 verb 'Returns' and the resource (connection status and URLs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than performing authentication. The conditional outcomes further specify the tool's behavior, making its purpose 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 provides context on when to use it (e.g., when all providers connected vs credentials missing) and implies it is for checking status, not for performing authentication. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling list makes the distinction obvious. It gives clear usage scenarios without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.