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:true and idempotentHint:true, and the description adds conditional behavior about response fields (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url) that are not in the annotations. This goes beyond the structured data, though it could be more explicit about the lack of side effects.
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 the primary action and then efficiently covering conditional cases. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Covers the primary response scenarios and key fields, but does not detail the exact JSON structure beyond field names. For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete; it could be slightly more explicit about whether any other response states exist.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description focuses on return behavior, which is appropriate since no parameter semantics are needed.
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?
Clearly states it 'Returns connection status and URLs' using a specific verb and resource. The description distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on status and URL output rather than actions like authentication or marketplace operations.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use the tool by explaining the two response scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), implying its role as a health check. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use instead of', so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.