login_statusChecks whether the Google session in the local browser profile is still active, so you know if re-authentication is needed before running NotebookLM or Google actions.
Confere se a sessão do Google ainda está ativa no perfil local.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.16.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that the check targets the local profile, but says nothing about what an inactive result means or what the agent should do next. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.
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 with zero filler. It is tight but also thin — nothing is wasted, yet nothing extra is offered.
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 simple 0-param read-only check with annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate to call the tool. It stops short of telling the agent what the result implies or which sibling to invoke when the session is not active, leaving a real gap in an otherwise simple case.
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?
Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter claims are made or needed; baseline for a 0-param tool applies.
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 ('Confere') and a specific resource ('sessão do Google... no perfil local'), so an agent knows this reports session state rather than performing a login. It is distinguishable from login_iniciar by implication (check vs. start), but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is inferential.
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 'Confere' and the status framing imply this is a pre-flight check to run before authenticated Google operations, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or that login_iniciar should follow an inactive result. Usage is implied only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.