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?
The annotations establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable conditional details: the exact authenticated state, pending array behavior, and returned URLs when credentials are missing. This gives agents enough context to interpret results without over-describing.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two compact conditional sentences. Every sentence contributes concrete information and there is no filler or repetition of annotation values.
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 tool's trivial input schema, strong annotations, and simple conceptual scope, the description is sufficient. It explains both relevant outcomes and the key fields in the response even though no output schema is provided, leaving little meaningful ambiguity.
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 and the schema already covers this fully, so the description does not need to explain inputs. It instead adds appropriate meaning by describing what the connection-status output represents, which is more useful than parameter details.
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 verb and resource: it 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on status reporting rather than initiating authentication or showing version/toolkit info, and it explicitly describes the success and missing-credential states.
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 provides clear conditional context: when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing, it shows what the caller should expect. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like authenticate as the better choice for initiating connections, but it clearly implies this tool is for inspection rather than setup.
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.