Detect when a web page is blocked at a sign-in, one-time code, or approval step; reads form fields and page text so agents know a human must complete authentication.
Check whether the page is stuck at a sign-in, one-time code (2FA) or sign-in approval step. Reads form fields and page text only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a meaningful trait: it 'reads form fields and page text only,' signalling a passive, non-mutating check that does not click or submit. It does not state repeat-safety or side effects, but the read-only scope is a genuine disclosure beyond structured fields.
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, zero filler, with the detection target front-loaded and the read-scope constraint following. Every clause 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with no parameters the surface is minimal. The description covers what the check detects and how, though it omits what the agent should do after a positive result.
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 no parameter surface for the description to explain; baseline 4 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (check) and resource (login wall) and enumerates exactly the states it detects: sign-in, one-time code (2FA), sign-in approval. This distinguishes it from read_page and check_agent_status, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose (call it to determine whether the page is blocked at an auth step), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to siblings like request_takeover/request_approval that follow a positive detection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.