Validates your Leanpub API key and retrieves the authenticated user, confirming the key works before making other API calls.
Verify the configured Leanpub API key and return the authenticated user.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys that the tool performs a verification action and returns a user, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as error handling on an invalid key, whether any external network call occurs, or that the operation is read-only.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, object, and result with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 parameterless tool, this is nearly complete: an agent knows exactly what action to take and what result to expect ('authenticated user'). It could be strengthened by describing the shape of the returned user object, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 needs no parameter documentation. The description adds the useful context that the key being verified is the 'configured' Leanpub API key, which is the only input-relevant detail. Baseline for zero params is 4.
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 uses the specific verb 'Verify' with the object 'configured Leanpub API key' and states the outcome 'return the authenticated user.' This is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, which concern books, coupons, courses, and royalties.
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 intended use is implied: call this when the API key needs checking and the current authenticated user is needed. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool or that it should be used as a preflight auth check, and it names no alternatives or exclusions among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.