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, destructiveHint=false, so behavioral safety is covered. The description adds details about response states (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url). It doesn't describe any other behaviors, but given annotations handle safety, this is acceptable. No contradiction.
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 main purpose. Each sentence adds value: first states primary output, second explains conditional states. No wasted words, appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.
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 the tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations providing safety info, the description explains the two likely response scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials). Enough for an agent to understand what to expect. Could mention pending[] details more, but for a status tool, this is sufficient.
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?
No parameters are present, schema coverage is 100% with zero parameters, so there is nothing to add. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description accurately reflects this by not mentioning any parameters. It adds meaning by describing the response states, which is helpful.
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, distinguishing it from siblings like authenticate and marketplace. It specifies what the tool does (return status/URLs) and differentiates it from other tools by focusing on connection status, not 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 usage: when you need to check connection status or retrieve URLs, use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like authenticate, which might be relevant for connecting. It provides context on what responses look like in different scenarios, but no explicit when-not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.