Test authentication methods by sending a GET request to a URL with bearer, basic, digest, OAuth2, or API key credentials to verify access.
Test different authentication methods with a simple GET request
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to test authentication against | |
| auth | Yes | Authentication configuration | |
| timeout | No | Request timeout in seconds (default: 30) | |
| insecure | No | Allow insecure SSL connections (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never says what 'test' returns (a boolean, status code, full body?), whether a real outbound request is made (with possible logging or rate-limit side effects on the target), or how credentials and the insecure flag are handled. For an un-annotated tool that transmits secrets, this is a significant gap.
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 no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably it is too terse for a tool with nested credential parameters and no annotations.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description would need to explain results, safety profile, and request semantics – none of which it does. With a nested auth object and an insecure flag, the one-line description leaves too much unstated for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and the nested auth object, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no format or usage detail beyond the schema – it only gestures at the concept of 'authentication methods'.
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 states a specific verb (test) and resource (authentication methods) and specifies the transport is a simple GET request, which distinguishes it somewhat from the write-oriented siblings. However, it does not differentiate itself from http_get, which is the obvious overlapping alternative, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it would pick auth_test.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given. The tool overlaps heavily with the HTTP verb siblings (http_get in particular), yet the description never explains the condition that should route an agent here instead. Usage must be fully inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.