Check live sign-in status for IE services to distinguish outages from logged-out states, without opening a browser.
Check live sign-in without opening a browser. Outages are not logged-out states.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| service | No | local | |
| warnings | No | ||
| truncated | No | ||
| next_action | No | ||
| next_offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful extra context: it performs a live real-time check, requires no browser interaction, and interprets outage-related states so the agent does not misread them as logged-out. These are meaningful behavioral nuances beyond the annotations.
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?
Two short sentences, both informative and free of filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a distinct interpretive caveat. 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 low-complexity tool with only one enum parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the lack of parameter elaboration and the absence of any pointer to alternative auth-status/login tools leaves a noticeable gap in decision-making context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the required 'service' parameter at all. The enum values are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description does not clarify that 'service' selects which account/sign-in context to check, leaving the parameter's role to inference.
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 specific action, 'Check live sign-in,' and the resource ('sign-in') is clear. The phrase 'without opening a browser' helps distinguish it from browser-based flows, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool ie_login_status.
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 implies when to use it ('Check live sign-in without opening a browser') but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not reference ie_login_status or other auth-related siblings, so an agent has no basis for selecting among related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.