Check the status of a device authorization flow. Call this after kweenkl_login to see if the user has approved the connection in their iOS app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | The session ID returned from kweenkl_login |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the flow sequence (after kweenkl_login) and that it checks user approval, which is consistent 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no extraneous content.
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 single-parameter, read-only tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does and when to use it.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a good description for session_id. The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond referencing kweenkl_login, but baseline is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb ('Check the status') and specific resource ('device authorization flow'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like kweenkl_login by indicating it is called after the login step.
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 explicitly says 'Call this after kweenkl_login', providing clear context on when to use the tool. While it doesn't mention when not to use it, the guidance is sufficient given the sibling context.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetch retrieves by ID, kweenkl sends notifications, login and login_check handle auth, status checks connectivity, and search queries history. No ambiguity.
Tools mix generic verbs like 'fetch' and 'search' with the 'kweenkl_' prefix for auth and status tools, and 'kweenkl' as a standalone verb tool. This is somewhat inconsistent but still readable.
6 tools is well-scoped for a notification service. Each tool serves a needed function without bloat.
Lacks channel management tools (create, update, delete) and a listing tool beyond search. Users cannot fully manage the lifecycle of channels or notifications.
