Verify OAuth authentication status by detecting client and token state, then refresh credentials to confirm the connection.
Detect OAuth client and token state; refreshes credentials to verify the connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the tool 'refreshes credentials', which is a mutating side effect, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is an annotation contradiction. The agent receives conflicting signals about whether calling this tool can change state, so the description fails to add trustworthy behavioral transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds relevant information: what is detected, and why credential refresh happens.
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 zero-parameter status tool, the description covers the main intent and behavior. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of what the returned status looks like, and the contradiction with readOnlyHint leaves the tool's side-effect profile unclear, creating a moderate completeness 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 has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. Per the baseline rule for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; there is no semantic gap to compensate for.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('OAuth client and token state'), and adds the purpose of credential verification. This distinguishes it from siblings like auth_login, auth_setup, and auth_logout, which perform different auth lifecycle actions.
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 conveys a clear context: use this tool to check/verify OAuth connection status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over login/setup/logout tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.