Check SSO token validity and cache freshness for an AWS organization, defaulting to the active org, so you can confirm credentials before running account operations.
Report token validity and cache freshness for an org (defaults to the active org).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | No |
| 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Report' implies a read-oriented status check, and the output schema likely covers return values, but the description does not clarify whether token validity is checked live or read from cache, whether any permissions are required, or whether the operation has side effects.
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 filler. The parenthetical default behavior is directly useful and does not distract from the core purpose.
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?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers the basic report scope and default org behavior. However, it leaves gaps around sibling selection and org identifier semantics that an agent would need in order to invoke it confidently in context.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single optional org parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining that it defaults to the active org, but it does not specify the expected identifier format (name, ID, slug) or how a non-active org should be selected.
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 ('Report') and two concrete resources ('token validity and cache freshness') scoped to an org. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as token_status, cache_status, or current_org.
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 only usage context is that the org parameter defaults to the active org. There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of token_status, cache_status, or current_org, nor any when-not conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.