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 goes beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by detailing the exact return values in different states: `authenticated:true` and empty `pending[]` when connected, and `connect_url` plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations do not provide.
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 then provides conditional behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.
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 sufficiently explains both primary states of the tool (all connected vs. missing credentials) and includes the relevant URLs. The tool is simple with no parameters, and the description covers all necessary context for an agent to understand its behavior.
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?
There are no parameters to document, and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameter details.
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.' This is a specific verb (returns) and resource (connection status and URLs), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than initiating authentication.
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 for when to use the tool: it returns connection status, and the conditional behavior ('When all providers are connected...' / 'When credentials are missing...') informs the agent of the expected outcomes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.