Read public registration availability (closed alpha is the default) and whether the caller's session or credential is valid (signedIn).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "access_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that closed alpha is the default registration state and that signedIn reflects session/credential validity, but it omits any auth requirements, whether the call is permitted pre-login, or other behavioral traits an agent would want before invoking it.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the two return concepts compactly parenthesized. Slightly dense, but no sentence is wasted.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source of return-value documentation. It names the two outputs but leaves their possible values vague (e.g., what 'registration availability' can be, what other fields accompany signedIn), so it is adequate but incomplete.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter surface the description could or should explain.
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?
States a specific verb (Read) and two concrete outputs: public registration availability and caller session/credential validity (signedIn). This is much more than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like account_me, which also report session information, so an agent must guess which to prefer.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. With account_me and the platform_access_* siblings in scope, the agent is given nothing about when access_info is the right call versus those tools.
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.