Displays the active sign-in app and Microsoft 365 account, and checks whether a valid authentication token is available for Microsoft To Do and Planner access.
Show which sign-in app and Microsoft 365 account are in use and whether a valid token is available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by enumerating what the call surfaces (active sign-in app, account, token validity), which is more than the annotations provide.
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 no filler, front-loaded with the primary output (which account/app is in use) followed by the token check.
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 must sketch return values — and it does, naming the three facts reported. A zero-parameter read tool needs little more, though noting the response shape or what happens on no active session would close the last gap.
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 no parameters (0 required, 100% coverage on an empty schema), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies.
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 concrete verb ("Show") plus the specific resources it reports — sign-in app, Microsoft 365 account, and token validity — so an agent grasps the diagnostic nature immediately. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it contrasts with (login, auto_login), which keeps it from a 5.
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?
"Whether a valid token is available" hints that this is a pre-flight check, but the description never states when to call it versus login/auto_login, nor any exclusions or ordering advice. Usage is implied rather than specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.