check_auth_statusVerifies whether the IS MU client is authenticated and returns student profile details or setup instructions when sign-in is required.
Check whether the IS MU client is authenticated. Returns student profile information (Name, UČO, semester) or setup instructions if unauthenticated.
| 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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: the tool returns either a student profile or setup instructions instead of erroring, which is useful. It says nothing about side effects, whether it touches the network or session state, or what an agent should do with the unauthenticated branch.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the outcome branches. No filler, no repetition of the title, nothing that could be cut.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the zero-parameter schema makes this a low-complexity tool. The description covers purpose and both outcome modes; the only real gap is not pointing to set_session_cookies as the recovery action, which would have made it fully self-sufficient.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space re-explaining an 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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Check whether the IS MU client is authenticated") and then names the two possible outcomes. It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it never names a sibling such as set_session_cookies as the remedy for the unauthenticated branch, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a precondition check to run before the other IS MU tools, and the mention of "setup instructions if unauthenticated" hints at a follow-up path. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.