am_statusVerify Apple Music authentication status before modifying playlists. Checks developer token validity and login state without changing anything.
Check developer-token validity and Apple Music login status. Use before any library write; this check changes nothing. / 中文：查看 Apple Music 自动化状态：developer token 是否有效、是否已登录（music-user-token）。任何写歌单操作前都应先确认已登录。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds 'this check changes nothing,' reinforcing the safety profile, and clarifies the auth-related checks (developer-token, music-user-token) which are not fully spelled out in annotations. It provides additional behavioral context without contradicting anything.
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 English description is two sentences front-loading the core purpose and usage. The Chinese translation adds specific detail (music-user-token) and repeats the usage guidance, earning its place for the target audience. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.
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 check with annotations already covering safety, the description is complete. It explains what is checked, when to use it, and that it has no side effects. No output schema or return-value description is necessary for an agent to call this correctly.
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 the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It correctly focuses on the action and purpose.
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 checks developer-token validity and Apple Music login status, using a specific verb ('Check') and resource. It is easily distinguished from siblings like am_search_songs or am_create_playlist, which have entirely 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?
The description explicitly says 'Use before any library write' and reiterates in Chinese that any song list write operation should confirm login first. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies exclusion from non-write contexts, even though no alternative tool is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.