Claude Code MCP Server

Claude Code auth status

claude_auth_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether the local Claude Code CLI is signed in; if not, report that login is required before running Claude Code sessions. Returns CLI_NOT_FOUND when the CLI is missing.

Instructions

Report whether the local Claude Code CLI is signed in, via claude auth status. If it is not, sign in with claude first (run it once in a terminal and complete the claude.ai login). A missing CLI returns CLI_NOT_FOUND with the install command (npm install -g @anthropic-ai/claude-code).

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": "claude_auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cli`	Yes	CLI output with terminal control sequences removed.
`email`	Yes
`orgName`	Yes
`loggedIn`	Yes
`authMethod`	Yes
`subscriptionType`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the CLI_NOT_FOUND error condition and the remediation command. Return shape is left to the output schema, which is acceptable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then login remediation, then the missing-CLI case. Every sentence carries information; only slight density in the parenthetical install command keeps it from a 5.

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, annotated, read-only check with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the prerequisite login path, and the primary failure mode with its fix. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning to add beyond the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report whether the local Claude Code CLI is signed in') and names the exact underlying command (`claude auth status`), which cleanly separates it from siblings like claude_run_local or claude_usage.

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?

Gives the actionable precondition path: if not signed in, run `claude` once in a terminal and complete the claude.ai login. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling tools, so it is clear context without formal exclusions.

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

Deploy Server