Checks if the browser profile is signed in and returns the account mask, browser, and cookie names, so you can confirm authentication before using account-dependent calculator tools.
Whether the browser profile is signed in (account mask, browser, cookie names). Read-only tools never need it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (account mask, browser, cookie names) and a cost-relevant guideline that read-only flows can skip it. It omits what happens when unauthenticated (error vs. signed-in=false) and how that state should be handled.
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?
One compact sentence plus a usage caveat, front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly telegraphic parenthetical, but no wasted sentences.
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?
Given no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers both what the call returns and when it can be skipped. The main remaining gap is the unauthenticated outcome and the handoff to auth_login, which is minor for a zero-arg status probe.
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 and the schema confirms an empty object, so there is nothing parameter-wise to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly adds no noise about arguments.
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 specific check (whether the browser profile is signed in) and even names the returned fields (account mask, browser, cookie names). It's distinguishable from auth_login by implication (status vs. login), but it never names that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
"Read-only tools never need it" is a useful negative rule that implicitly scopes the tool to pre-flight checks before mutating operations. But it never says explicitly when to call it, nor does it point to auth_login as the remedy when the status shows signed out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.