Check if the local YotoMCP server has a Yoto refresh token stored, without revealing the token. Use to verify authentication status before Yoto API operations.
Show whether this local server has a Yoto refresh token, without returning the token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description does add genuine value beyond annotations by asserting the token itself is never returned, which matters for a credential-related tool. It says nothing about the actual return shape (boolean vs. status object), which is a remaining gap with no output schema to cover it.
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 tight sentence with the core behavior front-loaded and the non-disclosure guarantee placed as a trailing qualifier. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the result, and it does so adequately ('whether ... has a refresh token' plus a no-token-returned guarantee). It is nearly complete, though the exact return format remains unspecified.
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 no parameter semantics to communicate; the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly signals a no-input call by describing a server-side state check.
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 ('Show') and a precise resource ('whether this local server has a Yoto refresh token'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the card/device listing siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling alternatives exist (e.g. yoto_auth_start or yoto_logout), so it does not fully earn 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a diagnostic check for auth state, likely called before authenticated operations or to decide whether to run yoto_auth_start. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or comparison against the sibling auth tools (yoto_auth_start, yoto_auth_complete, yoto_logout).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.