Verify your Microsoft sign-in status, user identity, Graph connectivity, and visible plan count to confirm authentication is ready before managing Planner tasks.
Report whether kairos is signed in, as whom, whether Graph is reachable, and how many plans are visible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It honestly describes what the tool reports, but it does not disclose whether the call is strictly read-only, whether it makes network requests beyond Graph reachability, or how it behaves on failure. The listed outputs give reasonable transparency, but not full behavioral disclosure.
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?
One tightly packed sentence covers all four report dimensions with no filler. The most important outcome ('whether kairos is signed in') is front-loaded, and the rest follows in a logically ordered list.
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 parameterless status tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It names every meaningful category an agent needs to interpret the result, and the output schema can handle exact return formatting.
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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are effectively vacuous. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4; the description adds nothing about parameters because none exist.
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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names the exact resource and outcome dimensions: sign-in state, identity, Graph reachability, and visible plan count. This clearly separates it from login flow and planner task tools, so an agent knows what this tool does without inspecting schema.
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?
There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives like kairos_login or list_planner_plans. The behavior implies it is a preflight status check, but the description never states that it should be called before login or before planner operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.