htb_vpn_statusCheck which VPN server is assigned to the authenticated Hack The Box account, returning its ID, name, location, and product, or assigned=false when none.
Show the VPN server currently assigned to the account: id, name, location, product — or assigned=false when none.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | No | Product pool, e.g. 'labs' (default) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that the result may be assigned=false when no server exists, which is genuinely useful negative-case behavior. It does not address auth requirements or rate limits, so against a lowered annotation bar this is a moderate 3.
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 front-loading the verb and resource, then listing return fields. No filler, and the assigned=false fallback is appended efficiently.
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 read-only status tool with a one-param optional schema, the description covers purpose and the empty-result case. It doesn't clarify the product parameter behavior or distinguish explicitly from htb_vpn_servers, but an agent has enough to call it 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 single parameter 'product' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with an example ('labs') and default. The description doesn't mention the product parameter at all, offering no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high.
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 (Show) and resource (VPN server currently assigned to the account), and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, location, product), which clearly distinguishes it from htb_vpn_servers (list all available) and htb_vpn_switch (change assignment).
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 implies usage through 'currently assigned' but never explicitly says when to use this versus htb_vpn_servers or htb_vpn_switch. The distinction is inferable from the sibling names, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.