session_statusVerify Redmine access before other operations: checks live connectivity via /users/current.json, then reports cached account and required consent checklist.
Call once first. Reports the cached account, whether Redmine is reachable with a live GET /users/current.json, and the consent checklist for this configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that it performs a live network probe (GET /users/current.json) rather than only reading cache, and that it surfaces a consent checklist. It does not describe failure behavior or output shape.
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 short sentences, with the actionable directive ('Call once first') front-loaded ahead of the payload description. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it names the cached account, reachability result, and consent checklist. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is 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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% and empty, so no compensation is needed.
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 names a specific resource (session status) and enumerates the three things it reports: the cached account, Redmine reachability via a live GET /users/current.json, and the consent checklist. That is far more concrete than a tautology. It stops short of naming or distinguishing itself from look-alike siblings such as auth_login_status or users_get_current, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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?
'Call once first' is an explicit, actionable timing directive that tells the agent to run this before anything else and not to repeat it. It does not state when not to use it or point to alternative status/auth tools, so it lacks the exclusions a 5 requires.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.