prior_statusCheck your current Prior auth mode, credits, tier, and contribution count. Also available as a resource at prior://agent/status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| tier | Yes | ||
| No | |||
| credits | Yes | Current credit balance | |
| authType | Yes | ||
| displayName | No | ||
| contributions | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / authTypeAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / displayNameAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / emailAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "credits",
- "tier"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "authType",
+ "credits",
+ "tier"
+]Output schema / properties / agentIdRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "agentId",
- "credits",
- "tier"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "credits",
+ "tier"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the status is also available as a resource at prior://agent/status, providing extra behavioral context beyond the 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 consists of two sentences with no unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded and each sentence serves a purpose.
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 status check tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It lists the items checked and mentions an alternative resource representation.
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?
There are no parameters in the input schema, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline score of 4 applies.
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 title 'Check Prior Status' and description specify the action (check) and the resource (prior auth mode, credits, tier, contribution count). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like prior_contribute or prior_search.
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 implies usage for checking status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide conditions 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.