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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable state-dependent details: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 concise sentences fully convey the tool's purpose and conditional outcomes. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and every clause provides useful information without 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 the tool has no input schema, no output schema, and simple read-only behavior, the description is complete. It covers both success and failure modes, including the structure of the response (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) and the addition of per-install URLs when credentials are missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, so parameter-specific guidance is unnecessary. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description compensates by explaining what the tool returns under different credential states.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource: connection status and URLs. It also describes the exact output conditions, which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status 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 provides clear situational context: use this tool to check whether all providers are connected and to obtain connection URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the conditional behavior makes its intended use clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.