searchts

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

login_status

Inspect stored login sessions to see sites, cookie counts, expiry, consent, and copied hosts; call when a read_url error mentions login.

Instructions

What searchts holds for logged-in reads: which sites are kept, how many live cookies each has and when they expire (an expiry is an upper bound, not a promise), whether each site was kept from a browser or from login_signin, whether the per-site consent for an automatic re-copy is recorded, whether this session may copy logins, which sites it has copied, and where the scratch folder is. Expired cookies are swept on every command, offline, with no daemon. Call this when a read_url error mentions a login. Returns JSON; never contains a cookie value. Pass url to also see which stored host that URL resolves to (an exact host, or a parent such as example.com for app.example.com). Update check: when a newer release exists, a successful result also carries 'update_available' plus, at most once per 24 hours, one line telling the agent. The check is one GET to the GitHub latest release of capad-xyz/searchts, at most once per 24 hours, cached in ~/.searchts/update-check.json, with a searchts User-Agent and nothing about the user. Nothing is installed or changed. SEARCHTS_NO_UPDATE_CHECK=1 turns the check and the note off.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "login_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.25.1Oct 31, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / url
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Url",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
Addedv0.15.0Oct 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it says expired cookies are swept on every command offline with no daemon, responses never contain cookie values, and the update check is a single GitHub GET with caching, User-Agent details, and an opt-out env var. It also clarifies that nothing is installed or changed by the update check.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core status fields, but it is a very long run-on paragraph. The update-check details, including cache path and User-Agent behavior, are relevant but verbose for a status tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it enumerates what the status contains, explains the optional url behavior, discloses the cookie-value safety property, and describes the update-check side behavior. The output schema can carry return-value structure details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the optional url parameter. It does: passing url makes the result show which stored host the URL resolves to, including exact-host versus parent-domain examples such as app.example.com resolving to example.com.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly indicates that this tool reports login/session storage status: kept sites, live cookie counts and expiry, provenance, consent, copy permissions, copied sites, and scratch folder location. It is specific about the resource and returned information, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as login_check or login_kill.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a concrete trigger: "Call this when a read_url error mentions a login." This routes the agent from read_url to login_status. It does not state when not to use it or compare directly with alternatives like login_check or login_signin.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server