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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining that the return payload varies depending on connection state, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict anything.
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, front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral nuance. No wasted words, efficient and clear.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description must explain return values. It covers the two key scenarios (connected vs missing credentials) but doesn't enumerate all possible fields (e.g., what 'pending' contains, or exact URL format). Still, it's sufficient for a status-checking tool with sibling 'authenticate' nearby.
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 baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and focuses on behavior. It doesn't need to compensate for missing schema info.
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 what the tool does: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the resource (connection status) and provides distinguishing details (authenticated, pending, connect_url). It is distinct from siblings like 'authenticate' since it's about status, not authentication.
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 explains behavior under two conditions (all connected vs missing credentials) which implies when to use it (to check status). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. Context about using 'authenticate' for actual authentication is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.