List saved login states with names, allowed origins, cookie counts, save dates, and expiry. Never exposes cookie values.
List saved login states: name, allowed origins, cookie counts, when saved and when the first cookie expires. Never shows cookie values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: cookie values are never exposed, only metadata such as cookie counts and first-expiry time. It stops short of covering anything else behavioral, but for a parameterless read tool the disclosure is substantive.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and then lists returned fields, closing with the most important caveat. No filler and nothing misordered.
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?
There is no output schema, so the enumeration of returned fields (name, origins, cookie counts, saved time, first expiry) and the no-cookie-values caveat do the work the schema would otherwise do. The only minor gap is that questions of ordering, volume, or scoping of the listing are unaddressed.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema sets the baseline at 4. The description adds no parameter detail because there is none to add, and correctly focuses on the returned shape instead.
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 (List) and resource (saved login states), and enumerates the fields it returns. It is distinguishable from the sibling state_save by the list-vs-save framing, though the sibling is not named explicitly.
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 nature of the operation (read-only enumeration with no parameters) makes the intended use implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of state_save as the counterpart action, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.