leafwright_auth_statusCheck whether Leafwright MCP is authenticated. Completes a pending browser login if approved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| next_step | No | ||
| user_code | No | ||
| expires_at | No | ||
| token_source | No | ||
| active_project_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, meaning the tool should not modify state. The description states the tool 'Completes a pending browser login if approved,' which is a state-changing action. This directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation, so the description fails to transparently describe the tool's true behavior.
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?
The description is short and front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is compact, though it introduces an ambiguous and contradictory side effect. Overall, there is no redundancy or wasted text.
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 tool with zero parameters and an output schema, the basic purpose is covered. However, the contradictory side-effect statement means an agent cannot reliably determine whether calling this tool will mutate authentication state. The pending-login approval flow is also unexplained, making the description incomplete for confident tool selection.
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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage. This is the baseline score for a zero-parameter tool; no parameter documentation is needed in the description.
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 clear primary purpose: 'Check whether Leafwright MCP is authenticated.' This is a specific verb and resource. However, the second sentence about completing a pending browser login blurs the distinction from the sibling tool leafwright_login, so sibling differentiation is not fully explicit.
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 use case is implied by the phrase 'Check whether Leafwright MCP is authenticated.' The conditional 'Completes a pending browser login if approved' provides some context, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of leafwright_login or leafwright_logout, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct auth lifecycle role: starting a login, checking/completing auth status, and revoking the token. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools share the leafwright_ prefix and use simple action-oriented names. login and logout are clean verbs, while auth_status is slightly more noun-like, but the pattern is predictable and readable.
Three tools is well-scoped for an authentication-focused server. Each tool earns its place and the count matches the domain's narrow purpose.
The tool set covers the full auth lifecycle: initiate login, check/complete status, and logout. There are no obvious dead ends or missing essential operations for managing Leafwright authentication.