Verify Higgsfield installation and sign-in, check remaining credits, and track session job statuses (running, done, error).
Is Higgsfield installed and signed in, and how many credits are left; with session, its Higgsfield jobs (running, done, error).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | No | Session as 'Project/folder', an absolute path, or its id (from get_session). An old path still works after a rename or move. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safe, read-only, open-world profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds useful context by enumerating the job states it reports (running, done, error) and revealing that it probes install/sign-in state. It does not cover failure modes or what happens when Higgsfield is not installed.
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 compact sentence with the primary question front-loaded and the optional session-scoped behavior trailing. Slight awkwardness in the 'with session, its Higgsfield jobs' clause, but no wasted text.
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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of indicating what comes back, and it does so at a reasonable level: install state, sign-in state, credit count, and per-job status buckets. Nothing critical is missing for a zero-required-param status probe.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the `session` parameter's accepted forms ('Project/folder', absolute path, id, rename-tolerant) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the semantic that session narrows results to Higgsfield jobs, which is a marginal addition over the schema baseline.
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 names a specific verb+resource pair: checks whether Higgsfield is installed, signed in, and how many credits remain, plus per-session job states. This distinguishes it from the sibling `higgsfield` (presumably the generation tool) as a diagnostic/status companion. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with that sibling, so it falls one notch below a 5.
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?
The phrase 'with session, its Higgsfield jobs' implies two modes of use — call bare for account status, pass `session` for job detail — but this is left to inference rather than stated as when-to-use guidance. No alternatives or prerequisites are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.