Report which sources are connected to the caller's TomeVault workspace and return the link that starts connecting another. Connecting requires the person to approve access in their browser, so this returns a link for them to open rather than completing it.
| 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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that the tool does not complete the connection, requires the person to approve access in their browser, and returns a link for the user to open. This prevents the common misconception that the tool performs the connection directly. It does not contradict 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?
The description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose before explaining the important limitation. The second sentence slightly repeats the idea of returning a link, but it justifies that repetition by explaining the browser-approval requirement, so there is no significant waste.
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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool reports, what it returns, and why it does not complete the connection. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and set proper expectations for the user.
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 and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter-level information for the description to add. With no inputs required, the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it reports which sources are connected to the caller's TomeVault workspace and returns a link to start connecting another. It also clearly distinguishes its behavior from actually completing a connection, which prevents confusion with the tool's name or with sibling tools like deliver_to_source.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to check existing source connections or to obtain a link for a new connection. It also explains the browser-approval requirement, so an agent knows to surface the link to the user rather than expect a completed connection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: get_tome and get_vault_item both fetch a single item's content without clarifying the relationship between tomes and vault items, and connect_source overlaps with get_workspace_status for reporting connected sources. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries between these pairs remain unclear.
Most tool names follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_tome, list_vault_items, scan_content, verify_attestation). There are minor deviations such as deliver_to_source with its preposition and connect_source whose name undersells its reporting behavior, but the overall convention is predictable.
Fifteen tools is within a reasonable range for a workspace, content-management, and attestation service, and most tools map to a distinct concern. The count feels slightly heavy because a few tools (get_tome vs get_vault_item, connect_source vs get_workspace_status) could potentially be consolidated.
Read, search, scan, versioning, and delivery workflows are well covered, along with members, billing, and workspace status. However, there are notable lifecycle gaps: no disconnect/remove for sources, no remove or role-update for members, and no delete or explicit approve action for vault items/versions.
