Get MCP OAuth Status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds the useful contextual detail that it checks an 'in-progress' flow, confirming a non-destructive status query. It does not disclose possible status values or polling behavior, but this is not critical given the annotations.

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?

One clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no unnecessary words. It earns its place entirely.

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?

For a simple status-check tool with good annotations and fully described parameters, the description is sufficient. It does not explain what status values are returned, since there is no output schema, but the tool's purpose is clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (state as 'OAuth state token returned by initiate' and server_id as 'MCP server id') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and a specific resource ('status of an in-progress MCP OAuth flow'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tool lyzr_initiate_mcp_oauth, which starts the flow, and other MCP server management tools.

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 word 'in-progress' implies this should be used after initiating an OAuth flow, but the description does not explicitly say 'use after lyzr_initiate_mcp_oauth' or mention any alternatives. Usage is implied but not spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.