Verify JWT and lastRequestId from .env are still valid before making API calls. Returns expiry details, seconds remaining, and user ID, or an error if missing/expired.
Verify the JWT and lastRequestId in .env are still valid. Returns {ok, expires_at, seconds_remaining, user_id} or {ok: false, error} if the JWT is missing or expired.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavior: it returns {ok, expires_at, seconds_remaining, user_id} or {ok: false, error} when the JWT is missing or expired. It does not clarify failure behavior for an invalid lastRequestId, so it stops short of full transparency.
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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second states the return shape and error case. It is front-loaded, precise, and every sentence 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?
There is no output schema, and the description competently describes the return object and error object. However, it only mentions the error case for a missing or expired JWT, leaving the failure behavior for an invalid lastRequestId unspecified. This is a minor but real gap for a tool that claims to verify both values.
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 parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline is 4. Mentioning JWT and lastRequestId from .env provides useful context but does not describe any input parameter semantics.
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 and resource: 'Verify the JWT and lastRequestId in .env are still valid.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from unrelated social-media siblings and tells the agent exactly what operation is performed.
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 by the phrase 'still valid,' suggesting a pre-flight or session-check context, but the description provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. For a zero-parameter auth check, this is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer timing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.