onshape_auth_statusCheck which Onshape credential is active, its source, and validity. Use verify to test it live with an API call, ensuring authentication works before proceeding.
Report which Onshape credential is active, where it came from and whether it still works. Secrets are redacted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verify | No | Also make a live API call to confirm the credential (default true). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by noting that secrets are redacted and that the tool reports credential origin and validity, going beyond the annotation. It does not explicitly state that the verify parameter controls whether a live check is performed, but that is captured in the schema.
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 with no redundant wording. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional note about redaction is concise and relevant.
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?
For a simple read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and adds redaction context. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's function, though it could mention the verify parameter's effect explicitly.
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% for the single 'verify' parameter, which is fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool reports which credential is active, its source, and validity. It is specific and not a tautology, but it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling onshape_login_status, which could overlap in purpose.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like onshape_login_status or onshape_login. It does not mention conditions for use or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.