Check the Zuuna API token's identity: organization, plan, granted scopes, and grace-window deadline. Use it to verify what the token can do before working with boards or cards.
Show the identity of the Zuuna API token in use: organization, plan, granted scopes and (when lapsed) the grace-window deadline. Use this first to check what the token may do.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly describes the informational nature and the output contents, but it does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior or other side-effect expectations. 'Show' strongly implies a read-only operation, yet that is not made explicit.
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 filler: the first states the primary purpose and output details, the second provides actionable usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
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, no-output-schema introspection tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No critical call-time information 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?
There are no parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden. The phrase 'token in use' correctly signals that no input is needed beyond the ambient authentication context.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show the identity of the Zuuna API token in use'. It enumerates concrete contents (organization, plan, granted scopes, grace-window deadline), making the tool easily distinguishable from sibling board/card tools.
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 closing instruction 'Use this first to check what the token may do' explicitly states when to invoke the tool. It does not name each sibling alternative, but the contrast with the board/card operations is clear from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.