Checks if AlphaPortal session can authenticate by resolving a refresh token and minting an access token. Returns status only, no credentials.
Check whether the server can authenticate to AlphaPortal: it resolves the refresh token (from ALPHAPORTAL_REFRESH_TOKEN, the saved session, or a signed-in browser tab via the bridge) and tries to mint an access token. Returns no credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing the token-resolution order (env var, saved session, bridge browser tab) and the important guarantee that no credentials are returned. It stops short of describing the failure/return shape.
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?
A single tightly written sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the credential-safety guarantee appended. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it checks, how it obtains tokens, and that it returns no credentials. The only gap is what a successful or failed check actually returns to the caller.
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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and instead explains the implicit inputs (environment variable, saved session, browser bridge) that drive behavior.
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 and resource ('Check whether the server can authenticate to AlphaPortal') and details the internal mechanism (refresh-token resolution then access-token minting). It is clear on its own, but does not distinguish itself from the close sibling alphaportal_healthcheck, leaving some ambiguity about which diagnostic to pick.
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 only implied: the description makes clear it is a pre-flight authentication check, and it enumerates the token sources it falls back to. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use healthcheck when Y' guidance or any stated exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.