Check if your ProcessOn account is authenticated by reading the saved API key or OAuth token locally, with no network call, to confirm credentials are ready for diagram generation.
Show current ProcessOn authentication status.
Reads PROCESSON_API_KEY (or cached OAuth token). Does not make a network call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly discloses the data source (PROCESSON_API_KEY or cached OAuth token) and the key behavior that it does not make a network call. It does not describe failure modes when credentials are missing, but the output schema likely covers the return shape.
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 extremely compact: two short sentences plus a clear first line. Every sentence adds useful information—what it shows, where it reads from, and that it avoids network calls. No filler or redundancy.
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 tool with an output schema, this description is complete. The agent knows what the tool does, what credentials it uses, and that it has no network side effects. No additional information is needed to invoke or interpret the tool 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 the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing missing. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed; the baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 and resource: 'Show current ProcessOn authentication status.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that generate charts or manage cache. The name 'whoami' reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.
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 gives clear context: it reads local credentials and does not make a network call, so an agent knows it can check auth status offline. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.