Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-pcloud-crunchtools

mcp-pcloud-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Pcloud Auth Status

pcloud_auth_status
Read-only

Checks whether the server has a usable pCloud credential and reports if pCloud access works, what credential is missing, and which tool fixes it.

Instructions

Report whether this server currently holds a usable pCloud credential.

Call this first. It says whether the server can reach pCloud, and if it cannot, what is missing and which tool fixes it.

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": "pcloud_auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.5.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's contribution is the disclosure that the result distinguishes reachable vs. unreachable pCloud and, on failure, reports what is missing plus the remediation tool. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though nothing is said about cost or caching of the check.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the purpose front-loaded and the sequencing directive immediately after.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description still summarizes the shape of the answer (usable or not, what's missing, which tool fixes it). Nothing an agent needs in order to call a zero-argument status check is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is none to add.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource: reports whether the server holds a usable pCloud credential. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings pcloud_auth_start and pcloud_auth_result, which initiate and complete auth rather than reporting existing state.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Call this first" gives an explicit ordering directive, and the description promises the output will name the tool that fixes a missing credential, which routes the agent onward. It does not name the specific alternative outright, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to act on.

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