axcel_statusCheck sign-in status, account plan, credit limits, and local settings before creating videos or images; call this first to avoid blocked requests.
Whether you are signed in, the account plan, credits and limits, plus local settings. Call this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds the sequencing cue ("call this first") and that local settings are included, but does not explain the surprising idempotentHint=false or openWorldHint=true, nor what happens if the user is not signed in.
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?
Two short sentences with the content summary front-loaded and the actionable directive second. Every clause earns its place, though the first sentence is a sentence fragment that reads slightly awkwardly.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — and it does enumerate the main categories (sign-in state, plan, credits/limits, settings). The categories are somewhat coarse ("credits and limits" and "local settings" are vague in shape), but adequate for a zero-parameter status call.
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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description could usefully add, and it does not need to.
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 names the specific resource contents — sign-in state, account plan, credits/limits, and local settings — so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It is distinguishable from billing or login siblings by enumerating those fields, though it does not name the alternatives explicitly.
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?
"Call this first" is a clear directive about ordering and implies the tool should precede other calls, which is useful. However, it gives no explicit when-not conditions and never contrasts with adjacent tools like axcel_login_diagnose or axcel_billing_plans that also surface account state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.