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, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing conditional response structures (e.g., authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url) and what triggers different fields, going beyond the safety hints without contradicting them.
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 three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and then efficiently explains response variations, with every sentence contributing useful information.
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 status tool, the description covers the two most important cases (all connected vs. missing credentials) and key fields. It could be more thorough by mentioning potential other response fields or error scenarios, but it's largely sufficient given the tool's simplicity.
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, and the schema is empty. Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4—the description doesn't need to add parameter-level detail, and it doesn't.
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,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status, not actions, and is not a tautology.
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 when to use this tool (to check connection status) and describes response conditions, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance. The usage is inferred rather than directly stated.
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.