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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the exact response shapes in different states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url), which is not covered by 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 three sentences: the first states the primary function, the second and third explain conditional output. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or irrelevant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
The description explains the two main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and the return values, which is sufficient for a no-parameter tool with no output schema. However, it doesn't cover intermediate partial-connection states, leaving a minor gap in completeness.
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 zero parameters, so the schema is vacuous. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning since there are none.
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, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than performing auth. The two conditional behaviors (all connected vs. missing credentials) further clarify its purpose.
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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like 'authenticate'. It doesn't mention 'use this when you need to verify connection state' or exclude other scenarios, so the guidance is only implied, not 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.