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?
The description reveals behavioral details beyond the annotations: it specifies the exact return structure (authenticated:true and pending[]) and the alternative behavior when credentials are missing (returns connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs). This is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and provides clear expectations 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?
The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs.'). It then efficiently explains the two possible states without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly effective and easy to parse.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main operational contexts: the fully connected state and the missing-credentials state. It does not mention edge cases like partial provider connectivity, but given the simplicity of the tool, the provided information is likely sufficient for most use cases. It could be more exhaustive, hence a 4 rather than 5.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high (100% here, since no required parameters), the baseline is 3. The description does not mention parameters because none exist, so it neither adds nor detracts from parameter understanding.
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's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also explains two distinct outcomes (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), providing a specific and unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' which likely performs authentication rather than status checks.
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 implicit guidance by explaining the two scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url when credentials are missing). This helps a user infer when to use the tool (e.g., to check connection readiness). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'authenticate', so it is slightly less explicit than ideal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.