auth_statusDetermine which Microsoft account is active, locate the token cache, and verify if the cached token is still valid. Use when OneNote authentication fails.
Reports which Microsoft account is signed in, the token cache location, and whether the cached token still works. Use it first when a OneNote call fails with an authentication error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It communicates a read-only diagnostic behavior and spells out the three pieces of status it reports, which goes beyond a mere label. It stops short of explicitly stating side-effect-freedom or how token validation is performed, but the framing as a status report is sufficiently transparent.
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, no filler: the first front-loads what the tool reports and the second provides a concrete usage trigger. 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 parameterless diagnostic tool, this is complete: it states the tool's outputs, implies its non-destructive nature, and gives an explicit scenario for invocation. No output schema exists, but the description names the exact information an agent would need from the call.
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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete and there is no parameter burden to compensate for. The baseline of 4 applies; the description adds meaning about what the tool reports, though parameter-specific semantics are not applicable.
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 ('Reports') and names concrete outputs (account identity, token cache location, token validity), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also contrasts with all sibling OneNote tools, which operate on notebooks/pages rather than authentication state.
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?
Explicitly instructs when to invoke: 'Use it first when a OneNote call fails with an authentication error.' This gives the agent a clear trigger and ordering rule; no alternative auth tool exists among siblings, so no exclusion is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.