hypathesis

Check Device Auth

check_device_auth

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if the user has completed browser sign-in for a device auth request.

Poll this after calling initiate_device_auth. Returns status 'pending'
while waiting, or 'complete' with an api_key when the user has signed in.
Use the returned api_key as the authorization parameter in other tools.

Args:
    user_code: The user_code returned by initiate_device_auth.

Returns:
    Pending: {"status": "pending"}
    Complete: {"status": "complete", "api_key": "hk_..."}
    Error: {"error": "..."}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_code`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Even with annotations indicating idempotent and read-only, the description adds critical context: the polling mechanism, possible return states (pending/complete/error), and the returned api_key usage. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with labeled sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description fully covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage sequence, parameter source, return types, and error handling. The output schema is documented inline, leaving no gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the sole parameter 'user_code' as 'The user_code returned by initiate_device_auth', adding essential context not present in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Check if the user has completed browser sign-in') and clearly distinguishes this polling tool from the sibling 'initiate_device_auth' by stating it should be called after that.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use ('Poll this after calling initiate_device_auth'), implying not to use before. This provides clear context for selection among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All hypathesis tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: two for authentication flow (initiate, check), one for status polling, one for retrieving results. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (initiate_device_auth, check_device_auth, get_analysis_status, get_variable_relationships), making them predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a focused service handling authentication, status checking, and result retrieval without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness3/5

The tools cover auth and retrieval but lack an upload tool, requiring external action to start the workflow. This is a notable gap for a complete lifecycle.

Resources

Need Help?