tigergraph__authenticate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that credentials live only in the session's in-memory connection pool and are dropped on disconnect, indicating no persistence. It also notes that only the specified profile is affected, making the tool's behavioral footprint transparent.

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 concise, organized into three focused paragraphs: the core purpose, profile behavior and exception, and authentication requirement plus session scope. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the complexity of 13 parameters, the description covers the non-obvious aspects that the schema does not: the 'Either/OR' auth requirement, the default profile substitution, the session-only lifetime, and the stdio-mode exception. This is sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 13 parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the exclusive auth-method constraint, the default profile behavior, and the session-scoped nature of credentials. This enriches parameter understanding without redundancy.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: registering TigerGraph credentials for the current MCP session. It further clarifies the scope by explaining it re-points an existing connection at a TigerGraph instance, which distinguishes it from other session-management tools.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it states when the tool is not needed (stdio mode with env-var profiles), explains the authentication requirement (either api_token/jwt_token OR username/password must be supplied), and clarifies the profile parameter behavior. This gives agents clear conditions for invocation.

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