Check whether a stored MyChart session can be resumed and whether verification is pending, using the persisted cookie jar for session continuity.
Report whether a stored session can be resumed, and whether a verification is pending. Session continuity comes from the persisted cookie jar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by disclosing the mechanism behind continuity, namely the persisted cookie jar, which explains why a resumable verdict depends on prior state.
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 tight sentences with the two reported facts front-loaded and the mechanism stated last. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description reasonably names the two things reported (resumability and pending verification), but it does not specify the concrete return shape. For a zero-parameter status probe with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete.
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; per the baseline this scores 4. No misleading parameter claims are made.
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 and resource: it reports session resumability and pending-verification state. That is clearly distinct from the write-oriented siblings mah_sign_in, mah_send_verification_code, and mah_verify_code, though it never names them explicitly.
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 rather than stated: an agent is meant to call this before attempting to resume a session, or when it needs to know if a verification step is outstanding. No when-not condition or alternative tool is named, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.