Check if a user is logged in and retrieve their username, provider, and token expiry minutes. Use it to verify authentication status before proceeding.
Check current authentication status. Returns whether the user is logged in, their username, provider, and how many minutes until the token expires.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of what comes back (logged-in flag, username, provider, minutes until token expiry), which is genuinely useful, but it never states that the call is read-only/side-effect free or whether it requires an existing token.
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?
Two sentences, purpose first and payload second, with no filler or repetition. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema in play, the description adequately documents the return values for a zero-argument status probe. It could add the read-only/auth-free note that annotations would normally supply, but otherwise nothing an agent needs is missing.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. No input semantics need explaining and the description correctly does not fabricate any.
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 ('Check current authentication status') and the sibling set makes the contrast with login/logout self-evident. It is clear, though it never explicitly names login/logout as the alternatives it is distinct from.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus login or logout, or of any prerequisite (e.g. call before an authenticated operation to decide whether to re-authenticate). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.