yolfi_auth_statusConfirm local MCP authentication using a stored agent credential or explicit override and return the current organization without needing an extra API key after browser setup.
Verify this local MCP connection using its stored agent credential or explicit credential override and return the current organization. No additional API key is needed after browser setup.
| 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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context about the stored agent credential or explicit override and the post-browser-setup no-API-key condition.
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 sentences deliver the purpose, credential source, return value, and setup prerequisite without filler. The main action is front-loaded.
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, read-only status tool with rich annotations, the description covers what it verifies and what it returns. It could say more about failure states or the shape of the returned organization, but it is sufficient to call correctly.
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 the schema baseline is a 4. The mention of an explicit credential override adds contextual nuance, though it is not represented as an input parameter.
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 verb and resource: verify the local MCP connection and return the current organization. This distinguishes it from mutation tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings such as yolfi_organization_get or yolfi_agent_setup_start.
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?
It implies usage context by saying no additional API key is needed after browser setup, which signals a post-setup auth check. However, it does not state when to use this instead of related organization or setup tools, and gives no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.