Check whether stored credentials remain valid. Returns valid on 2xx responses or rejected on 401/403, using the configured verify endpoint or token issuance.
验证凭据登录是否有效（2xx=有效，401/403=被拒绝）。优先使用配置的 verify 端点，否则以能否成功签发令牌为准。验证结果计入使用统计。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 凭据名称或 id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the validation logic, HTTP status meaning, the fallback to token issuance, and that verification affects usage statistics. It stops short of stating side effects or permissions, but is substantially transparent.
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 short sentences, each adding distinct information: what is verified, how it is determined, and the side-effect on usage stats. There is no repetition or filler.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavior and result interpretation. The only notable omission is the exact return value/format, but the 2xx/401/403 framing largely covers what an agent needs.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter already has a description ('credential name or id'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.
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 action (verify), the resource (credential login), and the exact success criteria (2xx valid, 401/403 rejected). This differentiates it from siblings like get_token or reveal_secret, which have different purposes.
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?
No guidance is given for when to choose verify_login over siblings such as get_token or list_credentials. The mention of preferring a configured verify endpoint is implementation behavior, not usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.