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=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds value by disclosing the output structure (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and the conditional behavior, which is not present in annotations. This exceeds the baseline for annotated tools.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no redundancy. Every sentence adds meaningful information about the tool's behavior, achieving excellent conciseness.
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 read-only status tool with no parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete. It describes the two main output cases and mentions URLs, though it doesn't detail URL format or list specific providers—acceptable for this scope.
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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline for 0-param tools is 4; the description adds no parameter details because none exist. It correctly focuses on the output, which is appropriate.
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 distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by being a read-only status check, and specifies the two possible output states, 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 implies usage when checking connectivity but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like authenticate. It describes output conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) but does not frame them as direct usage guidance or mention avoiding this for other actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are distinct: kb_* tools handle knowledge base operations, while authenticate/connect/marketplace/toolkit_info serve system-level purposes. However, 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' overlap slightly in reporting connection status, and 'marketplace' is a broad multi-purpose tool that might be confused with 'report_bug' for feedback.
The kb_* tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (kb_add_text, kb_get_document, kb_ingest_url, etc.), but system tools break the pattern: 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', 'show_version', 'toolkit_info' use varying conventions (bare verbs, nouns, compound names). The mixed style reduces overall consistency.
With 13 tools, the server covers both the knowledge base domain (9 kb_* tools) and platform management (4 system tools). This is a well-scoped count that doesn't feel bloated, and each tool addresses a distinct operational need.
The kb_* tools cover the core lifecycle: add text, ingest URLs, get/list documents, search, remove. Missing obvious operations like 'update document' or 'create a new empty document' are minor gaps easily worked around. The marketplace tool adds extensibility that mitigates domain gaps, but within the stated purpose the coverage is strong.