auth_statusVerify your Substack session status and identify the associated account to ensure valid authentication before accessing feeds or subscriptions.
Check whether a Substack session is configured and still valid, and which account it belongs to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond those: it specifies that the check covers both configuration and ongoing validity, and that it returns account ownership. This is useful behavioral information for an agent deciding whether to rely on the session.
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?
A single, tight sentence that front-loads the core action and outcomes. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the title.
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 zero-parameter status check with no output schema, the description covers the essential return semantics (configured, valid, account). It does not specify the exact output format, but for this simple tool the conceptual description is likely sufficient for an agent to interpret the result.
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 full schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics. It adds no param-specific meaning because none are needed.
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 ('check') with a clear resource ('Substack session') and states the outcome (configured, valid, account). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all content- or subscription-focused actions.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when it is appropriate to call it. It does not mention that it is a prerequisite for other actions, nor does it route the agent to a sibling for other purposes. This is a clear gap for a status-check tool that sits alongside many action-oriented siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.