agc_auth_statusVerify configured Huawei AppGallery Connect credentials by displaying account type, site, and read-only mode, then testing API client token exchange and Service Account JWT validation.
显示已配置的凭据（Service Account / API 客户端）、站点、只读模式，并逐一验证：API 客户端会向华为换取 token；Service Account 会本地签发 JWT 并调用一次查询接口确认可用。
| 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 description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the exact verification steps: API clients exchange tokens with Huawei, and Service Accounts locally sign JWT and call a query interface. This informs the agent that the tool may perform network calls and credential validation despite being read-only. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 dense sentence that front-loads what is displayed and then provides the verification details. Every clause adds value, and the structure is easy to parse. No filler or repetition.
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 diagnostic tool with readOnlyHint, this description is complete. It covers what is displayed, what is verified, and how each credential type is validated. Since there is no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the tool's behavior and expected result.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly omits parameter details that would be redundant.
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 clearly identifies the action (display and verify) and the resource (AGC auth configuration: credentials, sites, read-only mode). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools, which focus on API requests, app info, reviews, and file operations. The addition of concrete verification steps leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 implies this tool should be used to inspect and validate AGC authentication setup, especially before making API calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it compared with alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended usage is understandable but left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.