auth_statusCheck local login status to verify if JWT, user ID, and API base are present, without making network requests.
查看登录状态（本地配置，不发请求）：是否持有 JWT、用户 ID、API 基址。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "auth_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses the key trait: this tool is local-only and performs no network request, which is non-obvious from the tool name. It also lists the specific fields available (JWT, user ID, API base), giving the agent a concrete picture of what it will receive.
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 entire description is one compact, front-loaded sentence. It opens with the action and resource, immediately adds the critical local/no-request qualifier, and lists the returned fields with no filler.
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 parameterless, low-complexity status tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the tool's purpose, its network behavior, and the three pieces of information returned. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call 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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool applies; the description sensibly focuses on outputs instead of inputs.
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 names a specific verb (查看/check), a clear resource (login status), and a precise scope: local configuration only, with no network request. It also lists exactly what the status includes (JWT, user ID, API base), and the 'local, no request' qualifier distinguishes it from login-related siblings.
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 phrase '本地配置，不发请求' clearly communicates that this is the tool to use when the agent needs to inspect locally stored authentication state without hitting the network. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over login_* or get_me tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.