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?
The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as the exact response structure (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs). It does not mention any side effects, but the annotation already indicates it's read-only and idempotent, so this is sufficient.
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: the first states the core function, the second explains the two state-dependent outcomes. No redundant phrasing, well structured, and front-loaded.
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?
The description explains the two possible response scenarios and mentions URLs, which is adequate for a simple status tool with no output schema. However, it does not detail the structure of the URLs or any other fields, which could be slightly more explicit.
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 correctly does not attempt to explain parameters, and the schema already has no properties to cover.
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 behavior for connected vs missing credentials. This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, which likely performs authentication rather than reporting status.
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 usage when checking connection status, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It provides context such as the behavior when credentials are missing, which helps decide when to call it, but no direct comparison to other tools.
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 CRM tools are mostly distinct (CRUD, file operations, schema management), but there is potential confusion between crm_describe, crm_get_object, and crm_list_objects, and between crm_upload_file/crm_upload_from_url/crm_confirm_upload. However, descriptions clarify these somewhat. The set also includes auxiliary tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) that are clearly separate.
Most tools follow the crm_verb_noun pattern (crm_create_records, crm_delete_records, crm_update_records, etc.). Some deviations like authenticate, connect, toolkit_info, and show_version lack the crm_ prefix, and bulk support is noted in descriptions but not in names. Still, the convention is fairly consistent.
With 36 tools, the count is on the heavier side. The CRM-specific tools (about 27) cover CRUD, schema, relationships, files, and usage, which is reasonable for a full CRM API. However, the inclusion of platform-level tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) adds breadth that goes beyond CRM-specific functionality, making the set feel larger than necessary.
The tool surface is quite complete: full CRUD for records, objects, fields, files, relationships, search, and usage. The descriptions mention validations and bulk support, and the crm_describe tool prompts agents to understand schema first. Gaps are minimal—for instance, no explicit bulk delete for records but crm_delete_records supports bulk via ids. Overall, the domain is well-covered.