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 |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / auth_tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying that the tool reports existence and application stage, and it also adds the note 'Free.' There is no contradiction 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately short and front-loaded. The opening line repeats the title almost verbatim, and 'Free.' is a minor extra, but the overall length is well controlled and the core behavior is stated in one sentence.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what resource is being read and what aspect of its state is returned. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.
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 input schema has zero propertiesanding 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description instead indicates the kind of information returned, which helps the agent interpret the output for a parameterless call.
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 identifies a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('banking profile') and clarifies what is returned: whether the profile exists and where its application stands. It is clear and easy to distinguish from creation/submission siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_banking_application or other related status tools.
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 clearly establishes the use case: call this when you need to know the current state of the banking profile. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion guidance, but the context is unambiguous and not misleading.
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.