express_statusCheck if a standalone eXpress user session is active without exposing credentials. Verifies availability to enable reading and searching chat history locally.
Check whether the standalone eXpress user session is available without exposing credentials.
| 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?
The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful security guarantee—'without exposing credentials'—which goes beyond the annotations and is especially relevant for a session-status tool. It does not describe the exact return format, but for a zero-input status check this is a minor gap.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key credential-safety caveat without any 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 simple, parameterless status tool with rich read-only/idempotent annotations, the description provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The only omitted detail is the exact response shape, but 'check whether ... is available' sufficiently implies the outcome.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, so the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
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 ('Check'), the resource ('standalone eXpress user session'), and the precise outcome ('is available'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which list chats, get history, or send messages.
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 description makes the intended usage context clear: it is a session-availability check, likely a precondition for session-dependent operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but no sibling tool is a plausible substitute for this status check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.