Check whether site-indexer is signed in to Google, see which mode is active, and get next steps if it is not. Never returns secrets.
Is site-indexer signed in to Google, in which mode, and what to do if not. Never returns secrets.
| 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 mark this readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-call context are covered. The description adds a genuine disclosure beyond them — 'Never returns secrets' — though it says nothing about latency or whether the check performs a live network round-trip.
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 tightly packed sentence covering three questions (signed in?, which mode?, what next?) plus a security guarantee, with no filler.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does name the content of the reply — sign-in state, mode, and remediation guidance — which is the essential return information. It could say more about the shape of those fields, but for a zero-parameter status tool this is close to complete.
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 declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
Names a specific query: whether site-indexer is signed in to Google, plus the auth mode, and it distinguishes itself from siblings auth_login/auth_logout by being purely a status read. An agent can pick this over the login/logout tools without opening any schema.
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 phrase 'what to do if not' implies the tool's value in a remediation flow and hints you'd check state before calling auth_login, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition or alternative tool is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.