Check if the current user has completed real-name verification and signed the required agreements. Returns 200 {realnameVerified, agreementSigned} when all good; throws 403 HDKIT_NOT_REALNAME / HDKIT_NOT_AGREEMENT / HDKIT_NOT_REALNAME_AND_AGREEMENT to indicate what is missing. Never signs anything itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the read-only nature (never signs), the exact success response structure, and the specific error codes and their meanings (HDKIT_NOT_REALNAME, HDKIT_NOT_AGREEMENT, HDKIT_NOT_REALNAME_AND_AGREEMENT). This exceeds typical transparency for a simple check tool.
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 with zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral details (returns, errors, no side effects) are packed efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it states what is checked, what a successful result looks like, what failure modes exist, and that it has no mutating side effects. An agent has everything it needs to decide whether and how to call 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds nothing beyond what the empty schema already implies. No parameter documentation is needed, so the score is appropriately high.
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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource (user's real-name verification and agreement status). It precisely distinguishes itself from siblings like huaweicloud_sandbox_sign_agreement by explicitly noting it never signs anything, and from huaweicloud_auth_status by focusing on verification and agreements rather than general auth state.
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 when to use it (to check prerequisites) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'Never signs anything itself' hint suggests that signing tools exist, but it doesn't reference huaweicloud_sandbox_sign_agreement or other auth-related tools. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.