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 read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds clarity about the return format and the two possible outcomes (authenticated true with empty pending, or credentials missing with connect URLs). This is consistent with annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the basic hints.
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, consisting of two short sentences that convey the essential behavior without unnecessary fluff. It is well-structured, presenting the general purpose first, then the conditional details.
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?
Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value: connection status and URLs, with specific conditions for when each state occurs. It provides enough context for a user to understand what to expect from the tool without additional details.
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 no parameters, and the schema reflects that with an empty properties object. The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist. The schema is complete, so the description adds no missing information.
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: it returns connection status and URLs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than authentication. The conditions for different return values are explicitly outlined.
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 explains what the tool returns under different conditions but does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., 'Use this to check connection status') or how it relates to alternatives like 'authenticate'. Usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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.