ynab_auth_statusVerify if YNAB server credentials are configured and write tools are active. Use this status to confirm whether you can perform write operations or are limited to read-only queries.
Check whether the YNAB MCP server has credentials configured and whether write tools are enabled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.4.0Output schema / properties / result / descriptionRemoved value: -"Structured result returned by YNAB Auth Status."v5.2.0v5.1.1v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific context about checking credentials and write-tool enablement, which is useful beyond the generic annotations. It does not contradict 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?
Single, clear sentence with no wasted words. Verb and resource are front-loaded.
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 an output schema present and no parameters, the description covers the essential purpose. It's complete for a status-check 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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially complete. Baseline score of 4 applies as the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics.
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?
States a specific action (Check) and resource (YNAB MCP server credentials and write tools enabled), clearly distinguishing it from the data-retrieval siblings. The title and description align perfectly.
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?
Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, though it's clear it's a diagnostic status check. No exclusions or conditions are provided, but the purpose implicitly guides usage. Lacks explicit guidance on when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.