Nest Protect MCP Server

get_nest_auth_status

Check the configuration status of Nest authentication credentials and tokens, loading from .env if necessary.

Instructions

Get Nest Auth Configuration Status.

Summarize whether NEST_* credentials and tokens are loaded (masked); reads repo .env when needed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "get_nest_auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes	Empty parameters for tools that don't need input.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it reads the repo's .env file when needed and returns masked credential status. This provides sufficient transparency for a read-only diagnostic tool, though it could mention that it does not modify state.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences: first establishes the tool name, second adds the core functionality and behavior. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple status-check tool with no output schema, the description adequately hints at the return value (summarized status) and mentions the .env source. It could mention error scenarios or dependencies on prior OAuth, but overall is fairly complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema fully describes the single parameter (empty params object) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no further semantics, meeting the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves Nest Auth Configuration Status, specifically summarizing whether NEST_* credentials and tokens are loaded (masked). It distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_nest_credentials by focusing on status rather than validation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_nest_credentials, start_google_oauth, or refresh_nest_token. The phrase 'when needed' is vague and does not help the agent choose correctly.

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