get_auth_statusWhether this MCP connection has an ElkassabgiData API key configured (masked — the key itself is never echoed), and how to add one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true; description adds value by noting the key is masked and never echoed, and explains how to configure the key.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the key purpose.
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 auth status check, the description is sufficient despite lacking output schema details.
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?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), baseline 4 applies. Description adds meaning by explaining the tool's purpose and output.
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 whether an API key is configured and provides instructions for adding one, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle data retrieval.
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 for verifying connection setup, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor mention alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource/action: auth status, freshness, econ series, metadata, family status, HF/IP download links, dictionaries, source listings, and search. No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_* for retrieving specific items, list_* for enumerations, search_* for queries. Naming is uniform and predictable.
11 tools is well-scoped for a data library server covering multiple domains (econ, HF, IP) with retrieval, metadata, listings, and status checks. No redundancy or excessive granularity.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle for a read-only data service: status/auth, search, retrieval (via download links), metadata, variable dictionaries, and source listings. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.