Checks and establishes a valid session, ensuring you are logged in and the active wfirma company is verified without exposing credentials or tokens.
Log in if needed and verify the active company. Never returns credentials or tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_id | Yes | ||
| authenticated | Yes | ||
| company_pinned | Yes | ||
| accounting_access | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses a potential login side effect ('Log in if needed') and a security guarantee ('Never returns credentials or tokens'). The readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations already cover safety, and the description enriches them with session-specific context without contradicting them.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the security caveat is a distinct second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 simple, zero-parameter utility, the description covers the login behavior and explicitly warns about credential leakage. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required from the description. The only slight gap is lack of guidance on when to invoke it, but that is already captured under usage guidelines.
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 is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details that would be irrelevant.
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 states a clear action: 'Log in if needed and verify the active company.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that goes beyond merely restating the name. It also distinguishes itself from siblings, which all target data records (contractors, invoices, registers), by focusing on session state.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no sibling session tools, but the description does not advise calling this before other API operations or explain scenarios where it is required. The usage context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.