Check if the current Tmall seller backend session is logged in and valid, returning login status to confirm authentication before browser automation tasks.
检查当前登录状态
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires an active session, what it does if not logged in, or whether it has side effects (it should be read-only). The description is minimal and lacks necessary behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single short sentence that is appropriately concise Brad. It is front-loaded with the key action. No wasted words, though it could benefit from a bit more context, but for a simple status check, it is appropriately sized.
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?
The tool is simple with no params, but given no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least clarify what the return value indicates (e.g., whether it returns a boolean or status string). Also, with no siblings comparison, an agent may not know if login session persists. The description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns login state.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to explain any parameters. The schema already covers everything (no params). The description adds no parameter info, but it is not needed. Baseline 4 for zero params 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 '检查当前登录状态' clearly states the action (check login status) and the resource (current login state). It is a specific verb+resource, but does not distinguish itself from siblings beyond the obvious relation to tmall_login, which is for logging in. It is clear but lacks differentiated context.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus tmall_login or others. It implies usage for checking login status but does not state when not to use it or if it should be used before other actions. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.