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 adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations. It explains conditional responses (connected vs. missing credentials) and what fields are returned, providing clarity on tool 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core function. No unnecessary words, direct and efficient.
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?
With no input parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior—what happens when all providers are connected and when credentials are missing. It sufficiently fulfills user expectations for a status-checking tool.
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, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies for tools with no inputs.
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: returning connection status and URLs. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and describes the resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than authentication actions.
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 when to use the tool (to check connection status) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given sibling tools like 'authenticate', a more explicit contrast would improve guidance, but the context is clear enough.
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.