auth_statusCheck whether a local B2match token is available and, if valid, see which account it belongs to. Never exposes the token.
Show whether a local B2match token is available and, when valid, who it belongs to. Never returns the token.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful, non-redundant context — validation occurs locally and the token is never returned — which addresses the obvious security concern an agent would have.
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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed immediately by the security guarantee. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.
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?
With no output schema, the description does the work by naming the two returned facts (availability, owner identity) and the one thing withheld (the token). It stops short of describing the failure/expiry shape or what the caller should do next, which is a minor gap for a simple 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, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate or annotate.
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 verb ('Show') and the exact resource/condition ('whether a local B2match token is available and, when valid, who it belongs to'). This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, which are all domain-content tools rather than auth checks.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight auth check, but the description never says when to call it (e.g., before other tools) or what to do on failure. No alternatives are named because none exist, but the when-to-use framing is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.