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 establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the two states (connected vs. missing credentials) and what URLs are returned, which goes beyond the annotation metadata.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by useful conditional details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description fully explains the return values and the two relevant connection states. Even without an output schema, the agent has enough behavioral detail to invoke the tool and interpret its response.
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, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and there is no parameter ambiguity. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; a baseline of 4 is appropriate due to the absence of parameters.
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 states a specific action ('Returns connection status and URLs') and names concrete outputs (authenticated, pending[], connect_url). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status/URL reporting rather than performing authentication.
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 gives clear contextual scenarios: when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the usage context is well implied by the conditional behavior described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.