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, establishing this as a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the state-dependent output: when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing (returns connect_url). This transparency about conditionality goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate different return scenarios. However, it doesn't disclose details like rate limits or whether it hits external APIs, but given the annotations cover the core behavior, this is acceptable.
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 only two sentences, each packed with meaningful information. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') and then explains the two main states. There is no filler or repetition. It earns every word, making it an example of excellent conciseness.
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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers the happy path (all providers connected) and the missing-credentials path (returns connect_url). The trade-off between completeness and brevity is well balanced. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explain what 'pending[]' represents when not empty, but the description already implies that when authenticated:true, pending is empty, and when not, it likely contains pending items. Given the tool's simplicity, this level of completeness is 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters, the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not attempt to fake parameter explanations and instead clarifies the output semantics. This is appropriate; the description adds value by explaining the meaning of the returned fields ('authenticated:true', 'empty pending[]', 'connect_url'), which is more relevant than parameter semantics for a parameterless tool.
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's purpose: it returns connection status and URLs, with specific details about the 'authenticated' field and 'pending' array. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' (which likely initiates authentication) and 'toolkit_info' (which provides general toolkit info). The verb 'returns' plus the resource 'connection status and URLs' is specific and unambiguous.
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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: to check connection status or obtain connect URLs when credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternative tools. Given the sibling tools, 'authenticate' is the obvious alternative for initiating authentication, but the description does not make that comparison. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer correct usage.
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.
The set has major overlap: `marketplace` and `search_tools` both offer search/describe/invoke catalog actions, making it unclear which to call. `report_bug` is also called out as a capability inside `marketplace`, blurring whether that tool is the action or the top-level one.
All names are lowercase with underscores, but they mix verb-oriented names (`authenticate`, `connect`, `report_bug`) with noun-oriented names (`marketplace`, `search_tools`) and no consistent verb_noun pattern. `show_version` and `toolkit_info` are similarly status-like but follow different naming styles.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range and the count itself is not problematic. However, the `marketplace` tool is overloaded with many sub-capabilities and `search_tools` duplicates part of it, so the effective scope feels less clean than the raw count suggests.
The main workflows are covered: authentication, connection status, catalog search, account/toolkit state, and bug reporting. Missing pieces like an obvious way to uninstall/disconnect or list callable tools are hidden inside `marketplace`, but these are workable gaps rather than fatal ones.