Check the banking profile status
Reads the current state of the banking profile: whether it exists, and where its application stands.
Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth_token | No | Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Reads' conveys a read-only operation and 'Free' discloses no cost, which adds useful context. However, it does not describe behavior when a profile does not exist, error cases, or whether any side effect could occur.
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 short and front-loads the core meaning in the second sentence. The first sentence mostly restates the tool name, and the standalone 'Free.' is terse, but there is no unnecessary elaboration.
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 read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential outcome: whether the profile exists and where the application stands. It does not specify the exact return shape, but complexity is low enough that 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?
The single parameter auth_token has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it sufficiently. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, earning the baseline score of 3.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Reads') and names a concrete resource ('the current state of the banking profile'), clarifying what it reports: existence and application standing. It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_banking_application or get_banking_profile-related operations.
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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_banking_application or get_signup_status. The word 'Free' hints at a cost property but does not explain usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.