Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sparebank1-mcp

sparebank1-mcp

by MrLightful
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Authentication status

sb1_auth_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check local authentication status to confirm access readiness without exposing credentials or contacting the bank.

Instructions

Read local authentication status without exposing credentials or contacting the bank.

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": "sb1_auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description earns credit for disclosing two things annotations cannot: credentials are never exposed and no bank/network call occurs. That is genuine operational context for a status check. Minor tension with openWorldHint=true, but not a direct contradiction of the stated behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words, and the key safety guarantee (no credentials, no network) is placed where an agent will read it first.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and with zero parameters and rich annotations the remaining burden is small. The one residual gap is that it doesn't say what a status result implies for next steps (e.g., re-auth), which keeps it from a 5.

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 4 is the baseline and there is nothing the description could clarify. No misleading parameter hints are given.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Read local authentication status') and adds two scoping qualifiers (local, no bank contact) that distinguish it from the account/transaction siblings. It does not name the sibling it contrasts with, likely sb1_check_connection, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'local ... without contacting the bank' implies when this tool is preferable to a network check, but it never states an explicit when-to-use rule or names the alternative tool. Usage must be inferred from the phrasing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools