After owner approval, exchange the private continuation credential for an API token. Keep returned credentials private.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | No | Optional. Set a random key and reuse it exactly when retrying, so a retry is not applied twice | |
| continuationCredential | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / idempotencyKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"Unique random key for this operation; reuse exactly when retrying"New value: +"Optional. Set a random key and reuse it exactly when retrying, so a retry is not applied twice"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "continuationCredential",
- "idempotencyKey"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "continuationCredential"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it states the owner-approval prerequisite and instructs that returned credentials must remain private. With annotations already declaring idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, this is useful security and workflow context, though it omits details such as credential single-use or token lifetime.
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 compact sentences with no waste. The action and security handling are front-loaded and easy to scan.
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?
It covers the core exchange and security handling, but with low schema coverage and no output schema, it leaves gaps around the required `id` parameter and the returned token. The description is adequate but not complete for a credential-exchange operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It references the continuation credential but does not explain the required `id` parameter, and the schema already documents the optional `idempotencyKey`.
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 transformation: exchange a private continuation credential for an API token. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like start_onboarding and onboarding_status, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 gives a clear precondition: use this after owner approval. It does not provide explicit when-not conditions or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
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.