Set or refresh Mountain Project session cookies at runtime to keep API requests authenticated for accessing personal tick lists and route data.
Set or refresh the Mountain Project session cookie at runtime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | No | Numeric MP user ID | |
| persist | No | Save to session file (default: true) | |
| username | No | MP username slug | |
| apSession | Yes | ap_session cookie value | |
| xsrfToken | No | XSRF-TOKEN cookie value |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'set or refresh' without mentioning side effects like disk persistence (despite a persist parameter in the schema), whether prior authentication is needed, or what happens to the running session. This is a significant gap for a state-mutating tool.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the core action and target. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, with no filler or redundant wording.
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?
This is a session-mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to provide more operational context. It omits return behavior, side effects, and the authentication flow it participates in. While the schema thoroughly documents parameters, the description alone would not fully prepare an agent to call this tool correctly in context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. Each parameter already has a clear explanation ('ap_session cookie value', 'Save to session file'), and the tool description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides. No parameter semantics are missing or ambiguous.
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 uses specific verb-resource language ('Set or refresh the Mountain Project session cookie at runtime') and clearly distinguishes this tool from the read/search siblings like mp_search and mp_get_route. The purpose is immediately understandable.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to the similarly authentication-oriented sibling mp_auth_status. The phrase 'at runtime' hints at dynamic use, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.