integrations_oauth_statusCheck OAuth client setup status for a provider to confirm credentials are configured before connecting an integration.
Show OAuth client setup status for a provider
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | Provider key (e.g. slack, google, github) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.27Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating that this is a status/show operation, such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what specifically gets checked or returned.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and scope immediately.
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 simple, single-parameter status tool with full schema coverage and annotations that declare it as a read-only, closed-world operation, the description is mostly sufficient. It could be more complete by clarifying what 'setup status' returns or when to prefer it over related OAuth tools, but no critical call-time information is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the provider parameter already has an inline description with examples. The phrase 'for a provider' in the tool description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb (Show) and resource (OAuth client setup status) scoped to a provider, which distinguishes it from configuration/connection siblings like integrations_oauth_configure and integrations_oauth_connect. It does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives such as oauth_google_status, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It omits any mention of when-not to use it, prerequisites, or which sibling tool handles related actions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.