Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
environ-mcp

environ-mcp

by renhail
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

检查绑定状态

check_bind

Check which environ account the current session uses, how its identity was established (client binding, direct token, or shared default), whether the binding is still valid, and how many stations are visible.

Instructions

检查当前会话使用的是哪个 environ 账号、身份是怎么来的（客户端绑定 / 直传 token / 共享默认），以及绑定是否还有效、能看到多少个站点。用户问「我现在绑的是谁」「为什么查不到数据」时用这个。

Tool call template

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": "check_bind"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.5

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the four things inspected (account, identity provenance including client-binding/direct token/shared default, validity, station count), implying a read-only diagnostic. It never explicitly states the absence of side effects or the response shape, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded before the usage hint, and no sentence is filler. The single long sentence with a parenthetical enumeration is slightly dense but still scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema diagnostic, the description enumerates the information the agent will get back (account, identity source, validity, station count), so nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The mention that it operates on the 'current session' usefully clarifies implicit scope that a parameterless tool otherwise leaves ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (检查/check) and precise resource (current session's environ account, identity origin, binding validity, visible station count). It is clearly distinguishable from bind_user/unbind_user (which mutate the binding) and from list_stations (which enumerates stations rather than identity).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Concrete trigger scenarios are given via user phrasings ('我现在绑的是谁', '为什么查不到数据'), which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming alternatives such as bind_user for changing the binding, so it is clear but not fully routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools