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 provide readOnlyHint=true年代 and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by explaining the two output states (authenticated vs. requires connection), which is behavioral context beyond annotations. It doesn't describe rate limits or side effects, but with readOnly annotations, that's less critical. Given annotations carry the safety disclosure, this is adequate.
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 core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), then conditional details. Every sentence adds value with zero fluff. The structure is clear: main behavior first, conditional sub-behaviors second.
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 this tool has no parametershare, the description fully explains what it returns in both main states (all connected vs. missing credentials). It covers the connection status and URL details. No output schema, but the description provides the key return fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs). Complete for a simple status check 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 input schema has no properties (0 parameters), so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The description focuses entirely on return behavior, which for a no-parameter tool is the key information. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that by explaining what the tool returns without needing parameter context.
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 returns connection status and URLs, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by explicitly covering connection status rather than authentication. The two scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) add precision to the purpose.
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 this tool (to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing) by describing conditional behavior. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scenarios provide clear context for when the tool is relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.