Displays the active Sylve login context, including user, node, and JWT expiry status, so you can verify cluster access before managing VMs, jails, storage, or backups.
Show the active Sylve login context, user, node, and JWT expiry status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | Target cluster node hostname or UUID. Omit for cluster-wide. | |
| context | Yes | Named login context from ~/.config/sylve/config.yaml. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that JWT expiry status is surfaced — a useful behavioral fact — but says nothing about what happens when the token is expired or how auth failures manifest.
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 with no waste, leading with the verb and listing exactly the four data points returned. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?
With no output schema present, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (context, user, node, JWT expiry status), which covers most of the return-value burden. What is missing is the failure/empty-state behavior when no valid login exists, a real gap for an auth-introspection tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both `node` and `context` are documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, and there is mild tension: it advertises the "active" context while `context` is a required input, leaving the agent to reconcile that from the schema alone.
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?
Names a specific verb ("Show") and a concrete resource set: active login context, user, node, and JWT expiry status. This is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like sylve_node_drain or sylve_vm_create, though it never names sylve_context_list, the closest read-side alternative, so the boundary there is left implicit.
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 implied rather than stated — an agent can infer this is the "check I'm authenticated and whose credentials I'm using" tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to sylve_context_list for the case where the caller wants all configured contexts rather than the active one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.