Check if the credential store is initialised or unlocked, see credential count, and review approval mode before using stored logins.
Is the vault initialised/unlocked, how many credentials, approval mode, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the call reports (init state, credential count, approval mode), but says nothing about cost, freshness, or whether state is cached, which would matter for a status probe.
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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the primary question the tool answers. It would be tighter if 'etc.' were replaced with the actual remaining fields or removed entirely.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values. It names three fields but trails off with 'etc.', leaving the agent unsure what the full response contains for a no-arg diagnostic tool.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies: no parameter semantics are 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?
Names a clear inspection verb and enumerates the specific facts returned (initialised/unlocked state, credential count, approval mode), which distinguishes it from lock_vault/unlock_vault siblings. The trailing 'etc.' leaves the scope slightly open-ended, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 on when to call this versus alternatives like health_report, audit_log, or list_credentials, and no prerequisites or context noted. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.