archivebox_check_api_tokenValidate an ArchiveBox API token to ensure it is valid and not expired before making authenticated archive requests.
Validate an API token to make sure it's valid and non-expired
Args: token: The API token to validate.
Returns: Response: The response object from the POST request.
Raises: ParameterError: If the provided parameters are invalid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already disclose that this is not read-only, is open-world, is not idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds useful context by stating that it makes a POST request and can raise ParameterError, though it does not detail side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits.
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 first sentence is front-loaded and clear, and the docstring-style Args/Returns/Raises sections are compact. The Returns section is somewhat vague, but there is little wasted text.
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 one-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description explains the input and mentions a POST response and ParameterError. However, it does not explain what a successful or failed validation response looks like, which is important for an agent to interpret the result.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single token parameter. It identifies the parameter as the API token to validate, but adds no format, source, or expiration-related semantics beyond the parameter name.
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 and resource: validate an API token. It also clarifies that validation covers validity and non-expiration, which distinguishes it from sibling tools such as archivebox_get_api_token.
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 is used when an agent needs to check whether an API token is valid and non-expired, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.