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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it specifies what happens in different states (all connected vs missing credentials) and mentions the structure of the return (authenticated, pending[], connect_url). This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the conditional output.
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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it returns, the second explains the conditional states. No fluff.
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 (no params, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It covers the main states and key fields. It could mention whether the status is for all providers or a subset, or whether there's any network dependency, but for a status-check tool with no params and no output schema, this is adequate. The annotations cover safety, so the description doesn't need to repeat that.
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 coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't, which is appropriate.
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 the tool returns connection status and URLs, which is a clear purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate and toolkit_info by focusing on status/URLs rather than performing auth or general info. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools but implies the difference.
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 provides clear context on when to use: it explains the behavior when all providers are connected vs when credentials are missing, implying it's for checking connection state. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer 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.
Several tools are duplicated with nearly identical descriptions, distinguished only by a '[Flattened action]' footnote (e.g. evo_activity_list vs. evo_activity_schedule, evo_member_get vs. evo_member_list, evo_prospect_write_create vs. evo_prospect_write_update). An agent would struggle to pick the correct one without parsing fine-print labels. authenticate and connect also blur the auth boundary.
The EVO tools use a rough 'evo_<noun>_<action>' pattern but mix verb positions and styles: evo_member_get, evo_list_accounts, evo_activity_schedule, evo_sales_create, evo_bank_accounts. Platform tools like authenticate, connect, report_bug, and marketplace abandon the evo_ prefix entirely, and the giant marketplace tool follows no naming convention.
26 tools is above the 15–25 'heavy' band, and several are redundant flattened variations that should be merged. The set also mixes domain-specific EVO tools with unrelated platform utilities (marketplace, toolkit_info, report_bug), inflating the count without coherent coverage.
The domain is gym management (members, activities, prospects, sales, receivables), but the surface has major gaps: no member create/update/delete, no activity-create or schedule management, and only partial write operations elsewhere. Some tools contain unresolved 'PROBE' prompts, indicating unfinished endpoints that agents cannot reliably use.