Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
openevidence-mcp

openevidence-mcp

by bakhtiersizhaev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

OpenEvidence Auth Status

oe_auth_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if your OpenEvidence browser session is authenticated to ensure research queries work. Returns true/false and account metadata.

Instructions

Check whether the saved OpenEvidence browser session is authenticated. Use before history/article/ask tools when auth state is unknown. Returns authenticated=true/false and basic account metadata when available. Requires the local browser profile created by npm run login:session. No side effects. Can fail if the profile is missing, expired, or network access fails.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "oe_auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable context: requirement for a local profile, potential failure modes, and return structure (boolean + metadata). This goes beyond the annotations, fully disclosing behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third covers prerequisites and failure modes. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no parameters or output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, return value, prerequisites, side effects (none), and failure scenarios. It is fully adequate for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist and schema coverage is 100%. The description implicitly confirms no inputs are needed. Since no additional parameter info is required, the description adds full clarity for the parameterless interface.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks authentication status and returns a boolean and metadata. It explicitly ties its use to sibling tools (history/article/ask) and when auth state is unknown, distinguishing its role from those tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance: use before other tools when auth state is unknown, requires a specific browser profile, and notes failure conditions (missing/expired/network). Also states no side effects, helping the agent decide when to call it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools