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, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds concrete details about return payloads (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs), which enriches the behavioral picture beyond the annotations.
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 compact sentences pack all essential information. First sentence states purpose and primary return value; second explains conditional behavior. No 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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, description fully explains expected outputs under both normal and degraded conditions. No output schema exists, but return values are clearly described. Context with sibling 'authenticate' implies connection lifecycle, making this sufficient.
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?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%, 0 params). Baseline for 0-param tools is 4 per rubric; description correctly omits parameter details since none 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?
Description clearly states it returns connection status and URLs, specifying conditions for authenticated state and pending providers. Distinguishes from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than authentication action.
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?
Description implies usage for checking connection status and provides context on when different outputs occur (connected vs missing credentials). Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info', but the purpose is self-evident for a status-check tool.
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.