Reports whether a stored MyChart session can be resumed and whether verification is pending, using the persisted cookie jar to maintain 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?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, so the description needn't restate safety. It adds useful context that the result is derived from a persisted cookie jar (explaining why no parameters are needed and that state is external), but it says nothing about failure modes, what happens when the session cannot be resumed, or rate/refresh behavior.
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 two reported facts, with the mechanism note placed after. 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 no-param, read-only status check with annotations covering safety, the description conveys both the question it answers and the state source. Without an output schema it could have said more about the shape of the response, which is the only real 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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required and explains the state comes from persisted storage rather than arguments.
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 a concrete subject: whether a stored session can be resumed and whether verification is pending. This clearly separates it from siblings like mah_sign_in, mah_verify_code, and mah_send_verification_code, though it never names those alternatives 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 — an agent can infer you call this to learn current auth state before attempting an authenticated action — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no conditions for preferring it over re-authenticating via mah_sign_in, and no mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.