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 indicate readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining the response structure in detail: when authenticated:true and pending[] empty, and when it returns connect_url and per-install URLs. It does not contradict 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every phrase adds value (explains status conditions and return URL details). No waste.
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 simple nature (no params, no output schema), the description is complete for understanding the return status and URL behavior. It covers the main states and what to expect. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the exact return format or any error cases, but the context signals indicate a simple 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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantic info. The description fully explains what the tool returns, which compensates for the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter info is needed or provided.
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 fetches connection status and URLs, specifying the distinction between authenticated and pending states. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' which would initiate authentication, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
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 for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'authenticate' or other siblings. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or under what conditions the status might be stale.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes (auth, connection status, marketplace, recall card retrieval, search, system info). However, marketplace is a mega-tool with many sub-capabilities that could overlap with toolkit_info or connect in some contexts, creating minor ambiguity.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use simple verbs (authenticate, connect), some use verb_noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), and the recall_* tools follow a clear recall_action_noun pattern. This mix of conventions reduces predictability.
10 tools is a reasonable count for the combined domain of Recall knowledge base and MCP marketplace management. Each tool earns its place, though the marketplace tool bundles many operations into one that could be split.
The Recall knowledge base side is missing create, update, and delete card operations, severely limiting lifecycle management. While marketplace capabilities are extensive, the core Recall functionality is incomplete for a CRUD-based domain.