Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

license_status

Read-only

Retrieves the current plan tier and verifies whether this machine's sign-in remains valid, including expiration and any required action to restore access.

Instructions

Get the current plan and whether this machine's sign-in still holds it.

Returns the active tier (free/pro/business/enterprise), whether it is
valid, its expiration date, and how it was resolved (``oauth`` for a
Kiln account sign-in, ``default`` for none).  No authentication
required.

When the tier comes from a sign-in session (``source`` is
``"oauth"``), the answer also carries ``session_state``. If that
session has lapsed, ``is_valid`` is ``false`` and
``action_required`` says how to fix it — surface that line to the
user verbatim, because every hosted call will fail until they do.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "license_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: no authentication required, the exact set of returned fields, the two possible resolution sources, and the consequence that every hosted call fails while a session has lapsed. That downstream-failure warning is exactly the kind of operational risk an agent needs before deciding whether to proceed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose statement is front-loaded and the remaining paragraphs are ordered from return values to the session-lapse edge case, so reading can stop early. Minor overhead comes from reStructuredText-style double backticks and one restated point about session source appearing in both paragraphs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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 carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly, including the conditional session_state and action_required fields. For a zero-parameter read tool with annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret its result is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side. It instead spends its text on return-field semantics (tier, is_valid, expiration, source, session_state, action_required), which is useful but not a parameter concern.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the current plan and whether this machine's sign-in still holds it'), making the scope local and distinguishing it from generic billing tools. It never names siblings such as license_status_live or check_my_tier, so an agent must infer the boundary itself, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: it is the place to check plan tier and sign-in validity, and the agent is told to surface action_required verbatim when it appears. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like license_status_live, check_my_tier, or activate_license.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools