Validate your authentication status and retrieve current session details.
Get current session info or validate authentication.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "getSessionInfo"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'get current session info or validate authentication' but does not specify what information is returned, whether it returns a status or full session details, or whether calling it has side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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, concise and to the point. It could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., clarifying that authentication validation is a side effect), but it is not overly verbose and front-loads the core purpose.
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 an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., session ID, user details, expiry). It does not, leaving the agent to guess the response format. For a simple tool, this omission is a notable gap.
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 no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate since no additional clarification is required.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves session information or validates authentication. It uses specific language ('get', 'validate') and a distinct resource ('session info') that separates it from sibling tools, which focus on patients, encounters, or clinical data.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given its simple function (no parameters), it is implied that it can be called to check authentication status. The lack of exclusion criteria or context reduces guidance to a minimum viable level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.