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 state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's non-mutating nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the different response states (connected vs missing credentials) and what fields are returned. This goes beyond the annotations, providing insight into the tool's conditional behavior. No annotation contradiction is present.
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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. It wastes no words and conveys all necessary information efficiently. The structure clearly separates the general function from the specific outcomes.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values for the two main scenarios, but it does not cover intermediate states (e.g., some providers connected, others not). Given the simplicity of the tool and the content provided, it is mostly complete but could be slightly more thorough to address all potential states.
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 0 parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter usage since there are none, and the schema coverage is complete. No additional parameter semantics are required.
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: returns connection status and URLs. It specifies two distinct outcomes based on provider connection state, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' that handle authentication. The verb 'returns' and resource 'connection status' are specific and unambiguous.
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) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear from the description, but no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided. Since sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' are clearly different, the usage context is adequate but not maximally 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.