MisarReach MCP Server

auth_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether your client is authenticated with MisarReach and which API base URL it uses; get clear next steps if authentication is missing.

Instructions

Check whether this client is authenticated with MisarReach and which API base URL it is using. Returns actionable next steps when it is not.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that — it reports the API base URL in use and returns actionable next steps on failure — which tells the agent how to act on the result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the return-behavior note follows immediately, both earning their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes what comes back (auth state, API base URL, next steps when not authenticated). It is nearly complete for a zero-param status tool, though it doesn't describe the exact response shape or how to interpret an authenticated result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden to carry; per the rubric, a 0-parameter schema establishes a baseline of 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('whether this client is authenticated with MisarReach and which API base URL it is using'), which is precise and concrete. It is clearly distinguishable from the login/logout siblings, which perform authentication rather than reporting it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: an agent infers it should call this to verify auth state, and the description notes it returns next steps when unauthenticated. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this versus login/logout or other status tools, leaving the routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.