Check login status for all configured Israeli grocery stores like Shufersal and Tiv Taam. Verify authentication before comparing prices or automating carts.
Show the login status for all configured grocery stores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only status inspection with no mutations, but does not state whether authentication is required, whether it probes live logins or reports cached state, or if it has side effects such as refreshing sessions.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope constraint ('all configured grocery stores') comes before anything else, and every word earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and a zero-parameter tool needs no input documentation. The only missing element is differentiation from the sibling check_login, which is a small completeness gap rather than a functional one.
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 are no inputs whose meaning needs elaboration in the description.
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+resource: 'Show the login status' scoped to 'all configured grocery stores'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'check_login' or the per-store login tools, which an agent must disambiguate from the name alone.
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 phrase 'for all configured grocery stores' implies this is the bulk/all-stores view versus per-store login tools, giving implied usage. However, it never says when to prefer it over the sibling 'check_login', which is the obvious alternative, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.