Check whether the current session is authenticated. Returns authenticated status and token expiry. Optional: sessionKey (from checkDeviceLoginStatus).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionKey | No | Session key (osk_...) returned by checkDeviceLoginStatus. Pass it on every call when logged in via the in-chat device flow; omit when connected via OAuth. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns status and token expiry and explains the sessionKey behavior, which is helpful. It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or error behavior, but 'Check whether...' reasonably implies a non-mutating read operation.
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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then states return values, then gives the parameter usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the whole is easy to scan.
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 low-complexity status-check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it checks, what it returns, and how to handle sessionKey. It could mention how to interpret the authenticated status or what happens when unauthenticated, but this is not a major gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents sessionKey clearly. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining where the key comes from ('from checkDeviceLoginStatus') and specifying when to pass it versus omit it, which is not present in the schema.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether the current session is authenticated' and states what it returns ('authenticated status and token expiry'). It is clear about the tool's core function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling checkDeviceLoginStatus.
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 include sessionKey: 'Pass it on every call when logged in via the in-chat device flow; omit when connected via OAuth.' It also references checkDeviceLoginStatus as the source of sessionKey. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling 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.
The set has several near-duplicate or heavily overlapping tools: initiateTransfer and transferDomain appear to do the same thing, and generateDomainSuggestions, bulkDomainSuggestions, suggestAlternatives, spinDomainWords, and addPrefix/addSuffixToDomain all occupy suggestion space. Account/profile tools like getAccountSummary, getMyProfile, getRecentActivity, and getMyAuditLogs also blur together.
Many tools follow verb_noun camelCase (createDnsRecord, listInvoices, updateContact), but the broader set mixes styles: osirAppCreateUpload vs osirAppList vs osirAppStatus, plus inconsistent verbs like check/verify/validate/preview for similar lookup actions. The naming is readable but not predictable across the full surface.
105 tools is an extreme count for any single MCP server, even one spanning domain registration, DNS, VPS, email, billing, app deployment, and site publishing. The surface would be far more coherent split into focused servers by domain.
Core domain, DNS, billing, VPS, mail, and app deployment workflows are broadly covered. However, there are notable gaps: no way to update or reassign the contacts on an existing domain, no update operation for host/glue records, and no VPS power operations like reboot or stop outside the external control panel.