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?
With annotations already establishing this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, the description adds meaningful context by detailing the exact response shape under different conditions (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs). This goes beyond the annotations to clarify runtime behavior.
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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), followed by clear conditional details. Every sentence carries essential 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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers the behavioral and output aspects. The two conditionals (all providers connected vs missing credentials) explain the return values comprehensively. There are no gaps in context.
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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly does not introduce any parameter information, as none exist. No additional semantic explanation is needed beyond what the schema already provides.
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 a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than the authentication action. The conditional scenarios (authenticated vs missing credentials) further specify the tool's core function.
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 implies usage for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use it. The context of returning status and URLs makes the intended use inferable but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.