Skip to main content
Glama
mcp-server-worldquantbrain

mcp-server-worldquantbrain

Check the BRAIN session

auth_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports whether a WorldQuant BRAIN session is active and when it expires, without sending the password.

Instructions

Report whether a BRAIN session is active and when it expires. Never sends the password.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateYes
user_idNo
next_stepNo
biometric_urlNo
expires_in_secondsNo
credentials_configuredNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral disclosure beyond that: it never transmits the password, distinguishing it from the credential-handling siblings. It does not say what happens on an expired or absent session, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the first states the operation and its output, the second front-loads the security-relevant constraint. Nothing is padded or repeated from the name or title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return value detail is unnecessary, and the tool has no parameters, making it simple to invoke correctly. The only remaining gap is guidance on when in a workflow to call it relative to authenticate, which the description leaves implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter confusion is possible here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: report whether a BRAIN session is active and its expiration time. That is materially more specific than the title 'Check the BRAIN session', but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling authenticate/complete_authentication tools, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus authenticate or complete_authentication; the agent must infer that this is the read-only status probe used before or between authenticated operations. Usage is implied by the phrase 'whether a BRAIN session is active', but no conditions or exclusions are stated.

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