Verifies whether a Remind session is still authenticated by running a minimal query and reports if the browser session remains valid.
Verify the Remind session end-to-end by running the smallest authenticated query. Reports whether the captured browser session still authenticates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the mechanism (an actual authenticated query against the live session) and the reported outcome (auth still valid or not), which is not in the annotations or schema.
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 action and followed by the reported result. No filler, no repetition of the title.
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, annotated, no-output-schema healthcheck, the description covers what it does and what it reports. A minor gap is that it does not say what the agent should do on failure (e.g., re-auth flow), but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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. There is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for, and it does not add any misleading param 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 ('Verify the Remind session', 'healthcheck via smallest authenticated query') and explains the outcome it reports. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like remind_graphql or remind_list_chats, which perform real work rather than a connectivity/auth probe.
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 makes the usage context clear ('verify the session end-to-end', 'whether the captured browser session still authenticates'), which implies running it before/after other Remind calls when auth is in doubt. It does not, however, name explicit alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.