Check if the current authentication token is still valid. Use this to verify session status before performing ELN template operations.
检查当前 token 是否仍然有效。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks token validity, but does not disclose the return format (boolean, status object, or error), whether an invalid token throws or returns, or any side effects. With zero annotations and no output schema, this is a meaningful gap for an agent trying to interpret the result.
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, efficient sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the information is immediately front-loaded. This is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter utility.
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 validation tool this is mostly adequate, but the absence of any output-schema or annotation means the description should disclose what the checker returns. It does not. Given the low complexity, this is a minor-but-real omission rather than a severe one.
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 documents an empty object with 100% coverage. With 0 params, the baseline is 4 since there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema — and it correctly implies the operation takes no input.
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 (检查/check) and resource (current token), and states the exact purpose: determining whether the token is still valid. This is not a tautology — it clearly differentiates from the sibling 'login' (which obtains a token rather than validates one), making the tool's role unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to invoke this tool versus the sibling 'login' tool, nor any mention of usage context such as calling it before other authenticated operations. The reader must infer that it is a pre-check step. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.