Check if Google Messages is paired and see when the auth token expires without exposing secrets.
Report whether Google Messages is paired and when the auth token expires. Never returns secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that secrets/auth tokens are never exposed in the response, which is real value-add, but says nothing about auth requirements, failure behavior when unpaired, or whether the check is remote versus cached.
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 core purpose and followed by the security caveat. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 steps in to name the returned fields (paired state, token expiry), which covers the essentials for a zero-arg read tool. It stops short of documenting error or unpaired-state behavior, a minor gap.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline is 4. No parameter-related text is needed or missing.
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 ("Report") and resource (session/auth status) plus the two concrete facts returned: pairing state and token expiry. With no siblings to distinguish from, it is fully self-explanatory.
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 only: an agent infers this is a diagnostic/preflight check to run before other Google Messages operations. There are no siblings or alternatives to route between, so no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is needed, but none is given either.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.