Run a harmless DataLens authentication probe to confirm credentials are valid and return a secret-free status.
Run one harmless DataLens authentication probe and return a secret-free status.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it is a single probe ('one'), it is harmless, and the returned status is secret-free — a meaningful disclosure about output hygiene that annotations cannot express.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, its scope, its safety, and the nature of the return value, with no filler.
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 does carry some burden for return semantics, and 'secret-free status' tells the agent a status is returned without leaking credentials. It stops short of describing possible status values or failure behavior, but for a zero-parameter check that is a minor gap.
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 there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents or omits an input.
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 one harmless DataLens authentication probe,' with the added scope constraint of a single probe. It is distinguishable from dl_auth_refresh by implication (probe vs. refresh), but the sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the split.
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 word 'probe' and 'check' imply a preflight verification role, and 'one harmless' signals a cheap, safe call, but the description never states when to run it versus dl_auth_refresh or whether it should precede other calls. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.