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?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds context about what the status means (authenticated:true, pending[]), which is useful. However, it doesn't clarify potential rate limiting or whether it makes external calls, but the read-only nature is well covered.
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 (two sentences) and directly front-loads the core purpose. It includes necessary details about two key states without extra fluff. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool, making it highly efficient.
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?
The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the main behavioral states (authenticated, pending, and connect URLs). It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect. Minor detail about the exact format of URLs is omitted, but that's not critical for a status check tool.
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 no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for tools with no parameters is 4, and there are no gaps in the schema description coverage. The description's focus on output states compensates for the lack of parameter 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 clearly states what the tool does: it returns connection status and URLs, including authenticated state and pending connections. It also explains the two possible states (all connected vs. missing credentials), making its purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace'.
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 used to check connection status, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate' (likely for initiating connections). It also doesn't mention when not to use it. However, the detailed state descriptions provide clear context for when it would be relevant.
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.