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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about conditional behavior (connected vs. missing credentials) and what fields are returned (authenticated, pending, connect_url), making it more than just repeating annotations.
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, no fluff. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second details the two states. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return values for both connection states. No parameters need documentation, so the description is complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
With zero parameters, the input schema is empty. The description adds all meaning by explaining the output, which is the entire value of the tool. Per guidelines, 0 params earns baseline 4, but the description exceeds that by clarifying return behavior.
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 it returns connection status and URLs, and explains the two possible states (all connected vs. credentials missing). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, making the purpose 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 this tool is for checking connection status, not for performing authentication. It gives context on when it returns URLs versus empty pending, but doesn't explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives like authenticate.
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.
The three rdstation_contacts_* tools and three rdstation_webhooks_* tools have identical descriptions listing the same set of actions, making them indistinguishable. An agent cannot determine which tool performs which action based on the descriptions alone.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: domain-specific tools use `rdstation_<noun>_<action>` (rdstation_contacts_get) but also `rdstation_<action>_<noun>` (rdstation_list_accounts), and some tools lack the domain prefix (authenticate, marketplace). The pattern varies across the set.
At 15 tools, the count is at the upper bound of reasonable scope. However, many tools are redundant (e.g., three tools for contacts actions) and could be consolidated, making the set feel heavier than necessary.
The RD Station domain covers contacts, webhooks, events, and accounts. However, contacts lack a delete action, and there is no tool to list contacts. The webhooks set is complete (create, list, delete) but missing an update. Minor gaps exist.