auth_statusVerify whether Ninova credentials are configured and whether a fresh session can be created, so you can confirm access before using ITU student services.
Check whether Ninova credentials are configured and whether a fresh session can be created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "result": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "result"
+]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"auth_statusDictOutput"New value: +"auth_statusOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by defining the two-part check (configuration presence + session viability), which tells the agent what success and failure mean. It stops short of saying whether the session probe has side effects or what remediation follows a failure.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the check conditions are ordered from cheapest (is config present) to more involved (can a session be created).
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and with no parameters there is no input surface to document. It is adequate for this complexity level, with the only soft spot being the unstated relationship to obs_auth_status and refresh_session in a very crowded sibling set.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema coverage is 100%.
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?
States a specific verb ('Check') and two concrete objects ('Ninova credentials are configured', 'a fresh session can be created'), which is more precise than a bare 'get status'. Naming 'Ninova' implicitly separates it from the many credential/session siblings (obs_auth_status, mail_status), though it never states that contrast explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a diagnostic probe to run before/after other authenticated calls, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of the related refresh_session or obs_auth_status alternatives. It routes nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.