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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral detail by specifying the exact output conditions (authenticated vs. missing credentials) and the URLs returned. It describes side effects (none) implicitly. This exceeds the annotation coverage but doesn't cover edge cases like partial connectivity. Score 4.
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 action, and provides just enough detail. No redundant wording. It's highly concise and well-structured.
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 simple status tool with no parameters, the description covers the two main outcomes and provides the response shape. It doesn't include error cases or details about the URLs structure, but given the simplicitycars and no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to understand what it returns. It is complete for its purpose.
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 no parameters. The schema is empty (100% coverage trivially). The description doesn't need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but that's not necessary. Score 4.
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 purpose: it returns connection status and URLs)Skip. It explicitly describes two distinct output states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), which uniquely identifies it among siblings like authenticate or show_version. The verb is specific and the resource is well-defined.
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 the tool is for checking connection status, but it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives like authenticate or provide guidance on when to use this over other tools. It gives clear behavioral context, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations. This is a clear context but not explicit usage guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.
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.