Check your Microsoft To Do sign-in state and see which account is currently connected. Use it to verify authentication before reading or modifying tasks.
查看 Microsoft To Do 的登录状态和当前账号
| 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=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free read against an external service. The description adds that the result concerns login state and the current account, which is useful since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about failure modes (e.g. what happens when not logged in) or what the account identifier looks like.
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?
A single short sentence that front-loads the resource ('Microsoft To Do') and the two things returned. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.
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 zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent both the auth state and the current account are returned. It could go slightly further by naming the tool to use when the status shows unauthenticated, but nothing essential 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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies no input 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 and what is checked: the login/auth status and the currently signed-in account for Microsoft To Do. That is far more specific than a tautology and an agent can tell it is a status-query tool. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'login', which an agent might otherwise consider when auth is not working.
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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as 'login' (which presumably initiates authentication) or any prerequisite/precondition. Usage can only be inferred from the tool name and purpose; no exclusions or routing guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.