Verify Avanan credentials by performing auth handshake, listing key scopes, and probing MSP endpoint to confirm MSP-scoped key. Use when MSP tools return 403.
Verify the configured Avanan credentials: performs the auth handshake, lists the key's scopes, and probes an MSP endpoint to confirm the key is MSP-scoped. Run this first when MSP tools return 403.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must do the heavy lifting. It transparently lists the three main behavioral steps: auth handshake, scope listing, and MSP endpoint probe. This goes far beyond a generic 'test connection' and clearly implies a read-only verification process, although it doesn't explicitly state there are no side effects or describe failure modes.
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 two compact sentences. The first states the primary purpose and specific sub-steps, the second gives the practical usage rule. No fluff, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence contributes value.
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 'test connection' tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does (auth check, scope check, MSP-scope probe), and why to call it (first diagnostic step on 403). An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool's general purpose.
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 parameter semantics are moot. The schema is 100% covered (empty object), and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is required.
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 specific action: verifying configured Avanan credentials through an auth handshake, listing key scopes, and probing an MSP endpoint to confirm MSP-scoped access. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly targeting the connection/credential check and providing a concrete trigger (MSP tools returning 403).
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?
It provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Run this first when MSP tools return 403,' which tells the agent exactly when to invoke it as a diagnostic step. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools, so it's not fully explicit on when-to-use vs. alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.