Toast MCP Server

Get Toast MCP verification status

toast_get_verification_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks the current verification status of the Toast integration, indicating whether the configured credentials are valid and operational.

Instructions

Explains whether this server is using safe demo data or customer-supplied live Toast credentials, and what has been verified.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`safety`	Yes
`context`	Yes
`contractBaseline`	Yes
`readyForLiveData`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0-beta.1Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about what is checked (demo vs live credentials) and aligns with the annotations. No contradiction, and the extra detail goes beyond the basic annotation flags.

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?

Single sentence that is direct and free of fluff. The description front-loads the core purpose and includes enough detail without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With zero parameters and a declared output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function. It states what is determined (demo vs live) and what is covered (what has been verified), making it complete for a no-input status tool.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no misleading information. Given the absence of parameters, the description effectively covers the semantic space.

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?

Clearly states the tool explains whether the server uses demo data or live credentials and what has been verified. The verb 'explains' and specific subject make the purpose unambiguous, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools that handle data operations.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended use is implied by it being a status/verification tool, but the description does not mention when a user should prefer it over other tools or any prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server