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 description details the behavior in both scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials), specifying the return values. It is consistent with the readOnly and idempotent annotations, and no side effects are implied. This adds useful context beyond the 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 concise, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the purpose and behavior without redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaning.
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 absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values for both possible states. It provides a complete picture for a simple status-check tool, with no missing critical information.
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 no parameters in the input schema, and the description does not need to explain any. Since schema coverage is effectively 100% (no params), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter-related 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 explicitly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, and distinguishes between the connected and missing-credentials cases. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate.
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 conveys when to use the tool (to check connection status) and outlines the two possible outcomes, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like authenticate. It is clear enough for most use cases but lacks explicit 'use this when' language.
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.