Verifies if a Douyin account's local login cookie is still valid before publishing or login, preventing mid-process failures from expired authentication.
查询某个抖音账号在 social-auto-upload 里的登录态（本地 cookie 是否还有效）。发布/登录前先查一次，避免发到一半才发现没登录。account 是登录时用的账号名（不是抖音昵称）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes | 账号名（social-auto-upload 里登录时用的名字） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that this reads local cookie validity state in social-auto-upload, implying a non-mutating local check. It stops short of stating side effects, failure behavior, or what an invalid result looks like.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the usage hint and the parameter caveat. No redundant restatement of the tool name; tight and appropriately sized.
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 single-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, and parameter identity well, but there is no output schema and the description never says what the check returns (boolean, expiry, error shape). That leaves a small but real gap for an agent deciding how to consume the 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine disambiguation the schema lacks: account is the login name used in social-auto-upload, NOT the Douyin nickname. That extra meaning reduces a real selection error.
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 verb (查询/query) and resource (抖音账号登录态), and clarifies the mechanism (本地 cookie 是否还有效 in social-auto-upload). An agent can distinguish it from douyin_account_login/logout/publish without opening any schema.
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?
Gives a clear trigger: check before publishing or logging in to avoid discovering mid-way that you're not logged in. There is no explicit exclusion list or naming of a sibling alternative, but the when-to-use context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.