Verifies an explicitly configured local Yupao login session file, helping confirm authentication status without reading browser credentials or returning tokens.
检查明确配置的本机鱼泡登录文件，不读取浏览器凭证，不返回 token。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool read-only, non-destructive, and open-world; the description adds useful behavioral constraints by stating it does not read browser credentials and does not return tokens. It still does not describe the return status or error behavior, but the privacy and scope disclosures are valuable.
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 a single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and two relevant exclusions following. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining selection and behavior. It explains scope and exclusions, but it does not say what a successful check returns (for example, status, account identity, or expiration), leaving operational ambiguity.
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 no input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify at the parameter level. With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, baseline 4 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 names a specific verb (检查) and resource (本机鱼泡登录文件) and narrows scope to explicitly configured files while excluding browser credentials. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from session-related siblings such as yupao_check_messaging_session.
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 verifying a locally configured Yupao login file and explicitly rules out browser-credential lookup. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative, so the agent must infer selection from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.