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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the output shape under different conditions (authenticated vs. pending connections), which is useful beyond the annotations.
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 main purpose, and every sentence adds crucial information about conditional outputs. No fluff or 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?
The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), and annotations cover safety. The description explains the main behaviors (authenticated vs. missing credentials), which is sufficient for a status-check tool. Minor gap: it doesn't specify the format of the URLs, but that's not critical.
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%. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (status, URLs, pending array), which is the primary semantic context an agent needs.
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 purpose: it returns connection status and URLs. It specifies the resource (connection status) and the action (returns), and it differentiates itself from siblings like authenticate by outlining what it returns when providers are connected or credentials are missing.
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 context on when to use the tool: to check connection status and obtain connect URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the provided conditions (authenticated:true, missing credentials) imply its usage scenario.
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 follow a clear entity+action naming scheme, so leads_create, leads_get, etc. are easy to tell apart despite the repeated template in descriptions. Minor ambiguity exists between account and list_accounts, and the generic request tool may be confused with any specialized endpoint.
The dominant pattern kommo_<entity>_<action> is consistently used across most CRUD tools. Deviations like list_accounts, custom_fields, events, and request break the pattern but are still understandable and not chaotic.
48 tools is excessive for a CRM server, even with a large resource surface. Most of the count comes from flattened CRUD actions, which could have been consolidated into fewer, richer tools without losing clarity.
The toolset covers many core Kommo resources: leads, contacts, companies, customer, tasks, notes, pipelines, users, and conversations. However, deletes are missing for most entities, and several resources are read/list-only; the raw request tool fills some of these gaps but is not a first-class substitute.