Discover which schools you're logged into on EduPage, with each subdomain's login state, role, 2FA status, and user ID. Use it to verify access or select an account before querying data.
List all schools the server is logged into (from auto-discovery or login_all). Returns each subdomain with its login state, role (student/parent/teacher), 2FA pending status, and user id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does well: it explicitly lists the returned fields (subdomain, login state, role, 2FA pending status, user id) and the source of the data. The 'List' verb implies a read-only operation, and the description does not hide any major behavioral trait.
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 two sentences with zero filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded ('List all schools the server is logged into'), and the follow-up sentence enumerates the return fields efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description tells the agent exactly what it will receive and where that state comes from. Nothing critical is missing to invoke the tool correctly or to interpret its result.
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 the schema is trivially complete. The description adds value by explaining what the operation returns, which is the relevant semantic content for a parameterless getter. A baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clearly bounded resource ('all schools the server is logged into'), and it names the data source ('from auto-discovery or login_all'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like auth_status or user_id by focusing on the multi-school session scope.
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 description provides clear context by explaining when this data is relevant (after auto-discovery or login_all), implying the agent should call this to inspect the current school-session state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter listing tool the usage situation is fairly obvious from the phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.