Check authentication status for a Kaggle or Colab account to confirm credentials before submitting jobs. Reports auth snapshots per provider; mock data are test fixtures, not a live account.
Auth snapshots. Mock data are TEST FIXTURES, not a live account.
account reads that account only. There is no automatic rotation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| provider | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: results are mock fixtures rather than live credentials, and there is no automatic rotation. It does not say what a snapshot contains, whether the call is a read-only probe, or how missing/expired auth is surfaced.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed immediately by the fixture caveat. No padding, though the backticked parameter fragment is slightly cryptic in isolation.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, which lowers the bar. Still, for an auth-status tool the description omits what providers are valid, what state values mean, and how this differs from gpu_auth_status.
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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that ``account`` restricts the read to one account, but ``provider`` is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.
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?
"Auth snapshots" names the resource but uses a noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer this reports authentication/credential status. No differentiation from the sibling gpu_auth_status, which appears to do the same thing for another backend.
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 text explains scoping (``account`` reads that account only, no automatic rotation) but never states when to call this tool versus l2kc_list_accounts, l2kc_doctor, or gpu_auth_status. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.