session_statusCheck if your sundhed.dk session is live, see its remaining duration, and review how long the previous session lasted before ending.
Whether the sundhed.dk session is live, for how long, and how long the previous one lasted before sundhed.dk ended it.
| 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?
The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool reports both the current session's liveness/duration and the previous session's duration, and that the previous session was ended by sundhed.dk.
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 that packs in the three key facts an agent needs: live status, current duration, and previous session duration. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation information.
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 tool has no parameters and is read-only, the description is largely complete for selection and invocation. It conveys what the status report contains, though it omits unit/format details for the durations; since there is no output schema, slightly more format specificity would have been ideal.
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 there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead.
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 identifies the resource (the sundhed.dk session) and what the tool reports: whether it is live, its current duration, and the previous session's duration. It is distinct from the connect/disconnect and data-retrieval siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 guidance is given on when to check session status versus using connect_sundhed, disconnect_sundhed, or the other getters. The intended context is implied by the title and sibling set, but the description itself offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.