Check whether a CLI token is present and which user it authenticates as to confirm access for stock screening operations.
Report whether a CLI token is present and which user it authenticates as.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, so the description does not need to repeat safety signals. It adds value by specifying what the tool reports: token presence and the authenticated user. This is sufficient behavioral disclosure for a no-parameter status tool.
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 sentence that states the tool's core behavior with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what condition is checked and what information is returned. There are no remaining gaps that would prevent correct invocation.
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 there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's output rather than irrelevant parameter details.
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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and clearly identifies the resource: CLI token presence and the authenticated user. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like health or account_profile, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.
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 purpose implies when to call this tool: to verify CLI authentication status. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from related tools such as account_profile, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.