Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apidog-mcp

apidog-mcp

by ixlammm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

apidog_check_auth

Check whether your Apidog access token is valid by querying the current user endpoint. Provides clear confirmation of authentication status.

Instructions

Verify APIDOG_ACCESS_TOKEN by calling Apidog's current user endpoint.

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": "apidog_check_auth"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mechanism (calling an endpoint) but does not disclose the outcome: what is returned on success or failure, whether it throws exceptions, or whether it is read-only. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about how to interpret the result.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no unnecessary words or tangential information. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter tool, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks information about return values or error handling. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent cannot predict whether verification returns a boolean, throws, or returns user data. This is a minimal viable description but has clear gaps.

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 is empty (zero parameters), so schema coverage is trivial. The description mentions the token as context, not as a parameter, and with no parameters, the description need not explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 action: verify the APIDOG_ACCESS_TOKEN by calling the current user endpoint. The verb 'verify' and the specific resource make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling tools that perform CRUD or import/export operations.

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 usage is implied: a check for token validity before making other API calls. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of whether it should be called proactively or only after an auth error.

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