auth_login_with_otpStep 2 of 2 for in-conversation authentication. Exchange the OTP received by email for an APIKEY and SHOPID, and automatically initialize the session so all other tools work immediately. Call auth_request_otp first to receive the OTP by email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| otp | Yes | One-time password received by email | |
| Yes | Email address used to request the OTP |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description complements by explaining the token exchange and session initialization. No contradictions; additional context on the authentication flow is provided beyond what annotations specify.
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, no wasted words, front-loaded with the most important information (step 2 of 2), and structured logically with prerequisite and outcome.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers the entire process, including the two-step flow and immediate effect on other tools.
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 100% with descriptions for both parameters (email and otp). The description reaffirms that OTP is received by email and that email is the same one used in auth_request_otp, adding marginal value beyond the 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 identifies this as step 2 of a two-step authentication process, specifying the exchange of OTP for APIKEY and SHOPID, and session initialization. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from its sibling auth_request_otp.
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?
Explicitly states to call auth_request_otp first and that after this tool, all others work immediately, providing clear when-to-use and sequencing 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.
Each tool targets a distinct entity or action (account, client, order, product, payment, VAT, etc.), with clear naming like 'account_create' vs 'account_edit' and 'data_list_' prefixed listings. No overlapping purposes detected.
All tool names use snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., account_create, client_add, data_list_clients). Even compound names like auth_login_with_otp adhere to this structure.
41 tools is high but justified by the wide scope of a POS/accounting system (accounts, clients, orders, products, payments, VAT, reports). Slightly above the typical range but well-scoped.
The tool surface covers CRUD for all major entities (clients, departments, products, VAT, payment modes, orders), plus queries, reports, and authentication. No obvious gaps for a small business management server.