statusShows who is signed in to TeamOnly on this computer and displays the company plan, trial days left, plus every app’s address, access permissions, and last deployment date.
Shows who is signed in to TeamOnly on this computer, the company and plan (with free trial days left), and every app with its address, who can open it and when it was last deployed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's added value is scope and content: it explicitly says 'on this computer', so the agent knows this is local-machine state, not account-wide cloud data. It also discloses the payload fields, which is meaningful since there is no output schema. It stops short of noting whether multiple accounts or a signed-out state are possible.
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 sentence with the primary answer (who is signed in) front-loaded, followed by plan and app details. Every clause maps to a returned data category, so nothing is wasted.
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, the description does the work of documenting return values, and it covers all three groups (user, plan, apps) with their sub-fields. Annotations handle the safety profile. The only gap is edge-state behavior, such as what is returned when nobody is signed in or no apps exist.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.
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?
States a specific verb ('Shows') and enumerates exactly what is reported: signed-in user, company/plan with trial days, and per-app address, access, and last deploy time. This inventory of contents makes it clearly distinct from siblings like logs, get_app_rules, access, or subscribe without needing to open a schema.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'on this computer', which suggests a local environment check rather than a remote lookup, leaving the agent to infer the trigger condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.