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 and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by explaining the state-dependent return values: 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' versus 'connect_url and per-install URLs'. This goes beyond the annotation hints and clarifies what the tool actually returns in different scenarios, though it could describe edge cases like partial connections.
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, and every sentence adds essential behavioral detail. No filler or redundancy exists, making it concise and well-structured.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary states (all connected vs. missing credentials). It does not explicitly address partial connectivity or other edge cases, but the main use cases are sufficiently documented for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 the description does not need to explain parameter syntax or meaning. The schema already covers 100% of parameters (none), and the description adequately describes the tool's input-independent behavior. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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', identifying the specific resource and action. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by focusing on status rather than performing authentication, making the 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 clear conditions ('When all providers are connected...' and 'When credentials are missing...') that indicate when the tool is useful for checking connection state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to avoid using it, but the context implies it is the status-check tool among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.