auth_statusReports the authentication token source (environment variable, chat login, or request) and its expiration. Runs locally without network access or point usage.
Откуда сервер берёт токен (переменная окружения, вход из диалога или запрос) и до когда он действует. В сеть не ходит, баллов не тратит.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint already declaring safety, the description adds genuinely useful operational facts not present in annotations: the status is resolved locally ('В сеть не ходит') and consumes no API points ('баллов не тратит'). It also discloses that the result covers both token provenance and expiry, which tells the agent what it will learn. Minor tension with openWorldHint=true is mitigated because that hint is the MCP default and the description clarifies the actual offline behavior.
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?
Two short sentences, each carrying distinct information (what is reported / that it is free and offline). Front-loaded and free of filler or restatement of the tool name.
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, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers source of token, expiry, offline behavior, and quota cost. The only gap is the shape of the response (fields returned), but given the tool's simplicity this is close to complete.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly says nothing about inputs and instead spends its words on the reported output.
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 names a specific resource and scope: where the server obtains the token (env var, dialog login, or request) and its expiry. That is a concrete, identifiable purpose. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like start_login/finish_login/logout, leaving that differentiation implied only by the mention of 'вход из диалога'.
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?
Usage is implied (check auth state before calling other tools, or when a request fails), but the description never states when to call it versus start_login/finish_login/logout or what to do with the result. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.