gamelibs-mcp

epic_auth_status

Check Epic Games authentication status to determine if a valid or refreshable token exists and identify its source.

Instructions

Report Epic auth state (does a valid/refreshable token exist, and from where).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "epic_auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: 'Report' signals a read-only status operation, and the parenthetical precisely scopes what is checked and what kind of answer is produced. It does not discuss side effects like token refresh, but the description's explicit 'report' framing makes the expected behavior reasonably transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence. The parenthetical adds essential precision without bloat, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-argument status tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is reported and the key detail the caller cares about (valid/refreshable token and its source). It does not spell out the exact return shape, but for this low-complexity tool the description is adequate for an agent to invoke it and interpret its result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, and the schema correctly reflects that with an empty properties object. Since there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters, the baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter documentation is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('Epic auth state'), then sharpens the meaning with the parenthetical: 'does a valid/refreshable token exist, and from where.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like epic_login and epic_get_login_url, which are about establishing auth rather than reporting on it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: any time an agent needs to know the current Epic auth state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is self-evident enough to guide selection among the sibling auth-related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server