leafwright_loginStart a browser login flow for Leafwright MCP. Open the returned URL, choose an organization and project, then call leafwright_auth_status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_name | No | Optional client name shown in Leafwright. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| next_step | Yes | ||
| user_code | Yes | ||
| expires_at | Yes | ||
| device_code | Yes | ||
| verification_url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / device_codeAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "status",
- "verification_url",
- "user_code",
- "expires_at",
- "next_step"
-]New value: +[
+ "status",
+ "verification_url",
+ "user_code",
+ "device_code",
+ "expires_at",
+ "next_step"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the flow is out-of-band (a URL must be opened and the user must make selections), so the agent knows this is not a self-contained call. It stops short of saying what happens if a session already exists or how long the URL stays valid.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the required next actions. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padding.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the initiation flow and the handoff to leafwright_auth_status. The remaining gap is the already-authenticated / repeat-call case, which matters for a non-idempotent tool but is not addressed.
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?
There is one optional parameter (client_name) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries its meaning. The description never mentions it, adding no semantic value beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 when 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Start a browser login flow for Leafwright MCP') and positions the tool as the entry point in a sequence, pointing to leafwright_auth_status as the follow-up. An agent can distinguish it from leafwright_auth_status and leafwright_logout without inspecting either schema.
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 explicit step-by-step usage: open the returned URL, pick an organization and project, then call leafwright_auth_status. It does not state when *not* to use it (e.g., if already authenticated, call auth_status instead), which is the only missing guidance for full marks.
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.