Check the signed-in account, Moodle release, date timezone, and token capabilities for the current Nexus session.
Who is signed in, which Moodle release Nexus runs, the timezone used for all dates, and which capabilities this account's token can use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it exposes token capabilities and the canonical timezone for dates, which is mildly useful behavioral context, but it does not mention auth requirements, caching, or freshness.
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 sentence listing the four returned facts, front-loaded with the most important one (who is signed in) and free of filler.
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?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, so its main gap is the absence of any usage routing or prerequisite guidance. As a zero-parameter, read-only status probe the definition is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.
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 are no semantics for the description to add; the baseline for parameterless tools applies. Nothing in the text misleads about inputs.
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 enumerates exactly what the tool reports: signed-in identity, Nexus/Moodle release, the timezone used for dates, and the token's capability set. That distinguishes it from every sibling, which all deal with courses, assignments, grades, or content rather than system/account status, though it never states a verb like 'Returns' or 'Reports'.
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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to resolve identity, date timezone, or permissions before other operations. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the 17 sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.