Poll QR login status and verify a Lavka session without revealing credentials.
Poll QR login and verify Lavka session; never reveals credentials.
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": "qr_login_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one non-obvious trait — 'never reveals credentials' — and implies a repeatable read-only polling pattern, which is genuine value. However it omits the states the poll can return (pending/scanned/confirmed/expired) and there is no output schema, so the agent cannot tell what to do with the result.
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?
A single ten-word clause with the action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'verify Lavka session' is slightly vague about what is being verified, but it does not waste space.
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 polling endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the agent needs to know the possible status values and how to terminate polling; neither is provided. The security note partially compensates, but the critical return-value semantics are 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 of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.
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?
"Poll QR login and verify Lavka session" gives a specific verb (poll/verify) and resource (QR login session), which separates it from login_start and qr_login_cancel in the sibling list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation comes mostly from the tool name.
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?
"Poll" implies repeated invocation after login_start, but the description never states when to call it, when to stop polling, or what to do on expiry — qr_login_cancel and login_start are never referenced. Usage is only inferable from the name and the word 'poll'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.