Complete sign-up with the six-digit code the user received, and return a new API key (shown once). Call request_sign_in first. The key grants 5,000 free tokens; store it and pass it as the Authorization bearer on future calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The six-digit code from the email. | |
| Yes | |||
| label | No | Optional label for the key. | mcp-agent |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the API key is shown once, grants 5,000 free tokens, and should be stored as an Authorization bearer. It could mention error cases but adequately covers key behavioral traits.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return value, followed by prerequisite and token usage. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
The description covers the core flow (sign-up, key return, token grant) but misses details on error handling, one-time use guarantee, return format (just 'API key'), and the purpose of the optional 'label' parameter. Given no output schema, more return context would help.
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 coverage is 67% (code and label documented, email missing). The tool description does not add meaning for the 'email' parameter, which lacks schema description. It merely implies email is used for identification but doesn't specify format or purpose beyond schema.
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 clearly states the tool completes sign-up using a six-digit code and returns a new API key. It specifies the resource (API key) and action (redeem code), and distinguishes from sibling 'request_sign_in' by noting it as a prerequisite.
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 explicitly says to call 'request_sign_in' first, providing clear context on when to use this tool. It doesn't list alternatives or when not to use, but the prerequisites are well-defined.
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.
