Verify that your Campus Virtual authentication token is valid without exposing secrets. Confirm session health to prevent access issues.
Comprueba si la sesión local/token del Campus funciona, sin devolver secretos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it states there is no secret leakage, which is important for a tool handling authentication. This additional behavioral disclosure justifies a score above baseline.
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 description is a single sentence that conveys all essential information without fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and includes the critical constraint about not returning secrets. No wasted words.
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 zero-parameter, low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: it checks session validity and guarantees no secret disclosure. While it doesn't state the return format, that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity. The description is practically complete for this use case.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain in the description beyond what the schema already implies. Per the scoring guidance, a no-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.
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 clearly states the tool's function: verifying that the Campus local session/token works. It specifies both the action (checking) and the resource (session/token), and explicitly notes it does not return secrets. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform other actions.
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 a usage scenario (checking auth status) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusion conditions. For a simple status check, this is acceptable but not thorough; an agent would benefit from knowing it should be called before other authenticated operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.