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 mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the baseline for additional disclosure is lowered. The description adds value by explaining the return payload in two specific states (all connected vs. missing credentials), which is not conveyed by the schema or annotations. No contradiction exists.
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 main purpose, and each sentence provides essential detail. There is no unnecessary fluff or repetition. It is concise yet informative, earning a perfect score.
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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description covers the primary states: all connected and missing credentials. It implies partial connectivity through the `pending[]` array but does not explicitly detail that case. While not exhaustive, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the guidelines, the baseline for 0 params is 4. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description needs no further elaboration, and this score reflects that adequately.
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 details on two outcomes. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' (which likely handles authentication) and other informational tools (e.g., 'show_version'). The verb 'returns' plus the resource 'connection status and URLs' 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 usage for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. There is no mention of 'use this when you need to verify connectivity' or 'do not use this to initiate authentication.' Sibling tools exist but no comparative guidance is given.
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.