Check unified Huawei Cloud authentication status across the global credential vault, OBS, KooCLI, and all supported agent MCP registrations. Returns only redacted/status information, never credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | Agent target to check: opencode, codex, codex-desktop, codearts, codearts-work, workbuddy, dsh, officeace, hermes, openclaw, atomcode, or all (default). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, but the description itself discloses key behavioral facts: it returns only redacted/status information and never credentials. This is transparent and prevents misuse, though it does not detail all side effects (e.g., no changes are made).
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 one sentence, directly states the purpose and the safety guarantee, and includes no filler. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 no output schema, the description provides enough context about scope and security. It could mention what statuses are returned (e.g., active/inactive) but that is not critical for selecting the tool.
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 'target' has a description listing valid values (opencode, codex, etc.). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds value but does not go beyond enumerating options; it is clear and sufficient.
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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource: unified Huawei Cloud authentication status across credential vault, OBS, KooCLI, and agent MCP registrations. It is distinct from sibling auth tools (init, confirm, switch, sync) by focusing on status retrieval.
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 authentication state and explicitly states it returns only redacted/status information, never credentials. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus auth_confirm or auth_sync, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.