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 it as read-only (readOnlyHint: true) and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains the exact fields returned (authenticated, pending, connect_url, per-install URLs) and the conditions under which they appear. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior without contradicting any 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 only two sentences long, immediately front-loads the main purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and uses every word. It is concise, well-structured, and free of redundancy. This is a model of efficiency.
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 having no output schema, the description fully explains the return value structure and conditional behavior. It covers both the success case (authenticated:true) and the failure/missing-credentials case (connect_url and per-install URLs). For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is a complete and sufficient description.
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 and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters that don't exist, and it adds no irrelevant details. It correctly describes the tool's behavior without parameter documentation needs.
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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource: connection status and URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval, and it explains conditional behavior (what happens when providers are connected vs missing credentials), which is 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) and provides useful context about the response in different states. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but for a read-only status tool, the usage context is quite clear and self-sufficient. The absence of an explicit 'when not to use' is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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.