Validates a Slack token by retrieving workspace and user details, confirming authentication and access.
Validate the Slack token and get workspace/user info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what happens on an invalid token, confirm that the operation has no side effects, or describe the shape of the returned workspace/user info. It only restates the basic action without adding behavioral depth.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though the slash-separated 'workspace/user info' is slightly compressed.
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 zero-parameter utility, this is minimally viable: an agent can infer that calling it validates the token and returns basic info. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the missing error semantics and vague return details leave a notable gap in contextual completeness.
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 documentation is not a concern. The input schema already covers everything, which matches the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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: 'Validate the Slack token'. This clearly identifies the tool's unique purpose and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which are token validation operations. The additional 'get workspace/user info' clarifies the output without creating serious ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_workspace_info or get_user_info, nor does it mention exclusions or fallback scenarios. An agent is left to infer that auth_test is for token validation rather than for general workspace/user lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.