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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying the two possible response shapes depending on connection state, which goes beyond the annotation metadata.
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, front-loads the primary purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and immediately follows with concrete conditional behavior. Every sentence adds value with 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?
For a parameterless, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the essential behavior: the success case and the credential-missing case. No additional return-type documentation is needed given the tool's simplicity, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency.
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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, but it does add context about what the returned URLs represent (toolkit-level and per-install) that is useful to an agent.
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, with specific conditional outcomes (authenticated:true when connected, connect_url when credentials are missing). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, which performs authentication, and show_version or toolkit_info, which report static metadata.
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 it: to check whether providers are connected and to obtain connection URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditional behavior provides clear usage context and complements authenticate without needing to state it.
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: authenticate handles login, connect checks status, codex_image_generate creates images, and marketplace is a meta-catalog. There is minor overlap between connect and codex_image_subscription both showing status, but detailed descriptions mitigate confusion. Marketplace is broad but self-contained.
Tool names follow mixed conventions: verb-only (authenticate, connect), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), prefixed with codex_image_ (generate, subscription), and noun-only (marketplace, toolkit_info). No consistent pattern across the set, making it hard to predict tool names.
With 8 tools, the count is within the typical 3-15 range and not excessive. The scope is broad (image generation plus platform utilities), but each tool has a defined role, so the number feels justified for a meta-toolkit server.
For the image generation domain, only generate and subscription are present, lacking image history or management features. However, the marketplace tool can dynamically fill gaps by invoking other MCPs, and the core generate workflow is covered. Platform utilities like reporting and versioning are complete.