transkribus_auth_check_sessionVerify that your Transkribus session is valid to avoid failed API requests. Returns a boolean indicating whether authentication is still active.
Check if the current Transkribus session is valid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0v3.0.0v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only, side-effect-free profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond stating the validity check, but it does not contradict the annotations.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.
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?
Given the absence of parameters, rich safety annotations, and low complexity, the description is essentially complete for invoking the tool. It does not specify the exact return type of the validity check, but that is a minor gap for such a simple operation.
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?
This tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about inputs. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools is appropriate here.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('current Transkribus session') with an explicit outcome ('is valid'). It is distinguishable from sibling auth tools like auth_refresh and auth_get_details by the validity focus, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of auth_get_details, auth_refresh, or auth_logout, and no mention of using it as a precondition for other operations. Any usage context is only implicit in the name and short description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.