Verify that your Microsoft identity, tenant, and Brightspace account match, and confirm email access and session lifetime.
Verify the current Microsoft identity, tenant and Brightspace account match. Reports email access and process-local session lifetime.
| 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what is verified and that it reports email access and process-local session lifetime, which is useful for an agent deciding how to interpret results.
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 brief, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first states the core verification, and the second lists the additional reported outputs, making every sentence earn 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?
Given the zero-parameter schema, rich annotations, and low complexity, the description is nearly complete: it names the verification target and the outputs. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on the exact return format would further reduce ambiguity, but the description is sufficient for correct invocation.
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, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description correctly implies no inputs are required, satisfying the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
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 ('Verify') and names concrete resources: Microsoft identity, tenant, and Brightspace account. It also states clearly what the tool reports (email access and process-local session lifetime), which differentiates it from sibling auth tools like check_auth, check_mytu_auth, and get_mail_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 gives a clear context for use: when you need to confirm that the Microsoft identity, tenant, and Brightspace account are aligned and to learn about email access and session lifetime. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the intended use case is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.