Check environment readiness, credential source, login guidance, and whether media generation is enabled without a network login or exposing credentials.
Check the environment, refreshed credential source, login guidance and whether generation is enabled. A configured token is not proof of a valid backend login. Does not perform a network login or reveal credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: it does not perform a network login, does not reveal credentials, and it reports a refreshed credential source rather than raw secrets — all beyond what the annotations state.
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?
Three tight sentences: the first front-loads what is reported, the second warns about token validity, the third bounds the side effects. No filler, though the first sentence is a slightly dense comma-list of nouns.
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 diagnostic with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the fields an agent will get back and explicitly bounds side effects. It does not describe the shape of the response or error states, but for a tool this simple that is a minor gap.
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. No argument syntax is needed and none is missing.
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?
States a concrete verb (Check) and enumerates the specific signals returned: environment, credential source, login guidance, and generation-enabled state. That is clearly distinguishable from sibling actions like start_login or generate_image, though it never names the adjacent diagnostic siblings (get_balance, get_generation_capabilities) it might be confused with.
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 only implied. The caution that 'a configured token is not proof of a valid backend login' hints this should be run to verify login state before generating, and the note that it does not perform a network login implicitly routes real login work to start_login, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is stated outright.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.