Verify if a valid ZHAW Moodle session is active, allowing secure access to course materials without ever exposing credentials.
Check whether a valid ZHAW Moodle session exists. Never returns credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| moodle_url | Yes | ||
| authenticated | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating 'Never returns credentials,' which is a meaningful guarantee beyond what annotations provide, especially for an authentication-related tool.
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 two short sentences with zero filler. The primary function is stated first, and the security-relevant caveat about credentials is a meaningful second sentence that earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status-check tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is fully adequate. An agent has everything it needs to select and invoke this tool correctly without additional detail.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully handles an empty parameter set and the description has nothing to add.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a precise resource ('valid ZHAW Moodle session'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from moodle_login and moodle_logout by focusing on session status rather than session creation or destruction.
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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to verify session validity before acting, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like moodle_login or moodle_logout, nor does it mention any exclusions. The usage context is reasonably clear from the purpose, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.