Check DataLens authentication and scopes by running a harmless API probe that returns secret-free errors, then reuse a failed automatic refresh until explicit recovery.
Run a harmless API probe and return classified secret-free authentication or scope errors; reuse a failed automatic refresh until explicit recovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, but the description adds two traits they do not cover: results are 'secret-free' (no credential material is returned) and failures are cached and reused until explicit recovery. The latter is important staleness context for an agent diagnosing auth. It does not describe what a healthy result looks like.
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?
A single semicolon-linked sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is dense and slightly jargon-heavy ('explicit recovery'), but every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.
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?
With no output schema, the description must characterize the return, and it only covers the error path ('classified ... errors'). It is silent on what a successful probe returns, which is exactly what an agent needs to branch on. Zero-parameter input is fully covered, but the output contract is incomplete.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Run a harmless API probe' that returns 'classified secret-free authentication or scope errors'. An agent can tell this is a diagnostic auth-check rather than a mutation tool. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling dl_auth_refresh, whose relationship is only hinted at.
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 clause 'reuse a failed automatic refresh until explicit recovery' implies this check consumes cached refresh failures, so usage is implied rather than stated. It never says when to choose this over dl_auth_refresh or what 'explicit recovery' concretely means. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.