Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PingCode MCP

PingCode MCP

by frontendRicky
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

PingCode Auth Status

pingcode_auth_status

Check the current authentication status including mode, authorization state, expiration time, and current user without returning any tokens.

Instructions

查询当前鉴权状态：模式（user / env-token / application）、是否已授权、相对过期秒数、当前用户。不返回任何 token。

Tool call template

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": "pingcode_auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned and explicitly states it does not return any token, which is a safety note. It lacks detail on side effects or permissions, but for a read-only status check, this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (mode, authorization status, expiration seconds, current user). For a simple tool with no parameters, this is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: querying authentication status, including mode, authorization status, expiration seconds, and current user. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pingcode_auth_login and pingcode_auth_logout by specifying it does not return tokens.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for checking auth status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context for when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools