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 declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds concrete output behavior (authenticated:true vs connect_url) beyond annotations, which is valuable context. No contradiction.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds necessary detail about behavior states. No redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description fully covers expected return scenarios and conditions. It sufficiently explains the tool's functionality for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description adds meaning about the connection states and returned URLs, which covers the tool's behavior adequately. Baseline 4 is appropriate since no params to document.
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?
Clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditions for authenticated state and missing credentials. Distinguishes from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status rather than establishment.
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?
Does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use. Context implies it's for checking connectivity, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The conditional behaviors describe outputs, not usage scenarios.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the aws_billing_* group. The main ambiguity is between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info', both of which report connection status, and 'authenticate' overlaps slightly with connection management. However, descriptions are detailed enough to reduce misselection.
The aws_billing_* tools follow a consistent prefix pattern, but the rest are wildly inconsistent: authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info. There's no uniform verb-noun convention, and mixed styles (snake_case vs plain words) make the set feel chaotic.
With 10 tools, the count is within the acceptable range. However, the server name suggests AWS Billing, yet only 4 tools are billing-related while the other 6 are generic MCP platform utilities. This scope mismatch makes the count feel inappropriate for the stated purpose.
For an AWS Billing server, the surface is missing critical operations: no budgets, alerts, cost allocation tags, or write actions (e.g., creating reports). The read-only cost, forecast, and anomalies cover only basic visibility. The presence of unrelated platform tools further dilutes billing completeness.