Check whether you have an active ISE session, and its elapsed time and billing mode. Free. Use this to find out what exit_ise_session will close.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth_token | No | Your DA agent auth token. Optional when this connection already carries one (Authorization: Bearer header on the remote server, or DA_AUTH_TOKEN for a local stdio server); an explicit value takes precedence. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / auth_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your DA agent auth token"New value: +"Your DA agent auth token. Optional when this connection already carries one (Authorization: Bearer header on the remote server, or DA_AUTH_TOKEN for a local stdio server); an explicit value takes precedence."Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "auth_token"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys that the tool is free and that checking status is read-only in nature, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or what happens when no ISE session exists. The description is adequate but not deeply revealing.
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 short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds actionable guidance about its relationship to exit_ise_session, making every word earn its place.
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 simple status-check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it checks, what fields it reports, its cost, and its relationship to a sibling tool. It does not describe the exact return shape, but the tool's simplicity makes this omission minor.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the one optional auth_token parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 checks for an active ISE session and reports elapsed time and billing mode. It also explicitly connects to exit_ise_session, helping distinguish this tool from the related SDAC session tools.
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 explicitly says to use this to find out what exit_ise_session will close, giving clear practical context for when to call it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to get_sdac_session, but the use case is well implied.
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.