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 the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details by outlining the response structure for the two main states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url and per-install URLs). It does not contradict annotations and provides context beyond the safety profile.
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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and then provides the necessary conditional details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or wasted words.
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?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description completely mitigates the lack of structured output information by detailing the two main return scenarios. It covers authenticated state and credential-missing state, making the tool's behavior fully understandable. The sibling context does not require additional elaboration.
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 there is nothing to describe beyond the schema. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description provides no unrelated parameter information. It correctly focuses on the output behavior instead.
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 function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status, not the act of connecting. The two return scenarios are explicitly described, making the purpose 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool by describing the two possible outcomes (all providers connected vs. credentials missing). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling names make it evident this is for status checking rather than initiating authentication.
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.