APIVerve

TOTP Generator

TOTPGenerator

Read-only

TOTP Generator: TOTP Generator creates time-based one-time passwords compatible with authenticator apps using standard TOTP algorithms. (Cost: 1 credit)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "TOTPGenerator"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`time`	No	Unix time in seconds to use instead of now
`token`	No	The code to check
`digits`	No	Number of digits in token
`issuer`	No	Your app or company name, shown in the authenticator app
`period`	No	Time period in seconds
`secret`	No	Base32-encoded shared secret
`window`	No	Time steps accepted either side of now (0 to 10); 1 accepts the previous and next code
`algorithm`	No	HMAC algorithm: SHA1 (default, what most authenticator apps use), SHA256 or SHA512	SHA1
`accountName`	No	The account the code is for, shown in the authenticator app (e.g., an email)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`error`	No	Error message, null on success
`status`	No	"ok" on success

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context in the form of credit cost and authenticator-app compatibility, but does not clarify whether the secret is required, whether the tool can verify a token, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, but it wastes space by repeating the tool name and title: 'TOTP Generator: TOTP Generator creates...'. The remaining content is front-loaded and efficient, but the redundant opening reduces clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although the schema is richly documented and an output schema exists, the description does not resolve a key ambiguity: the schema includes a 'token' parameter described as 'the code to check', which suggests verification behavior not mentioned in the description. For a tool with nine optional parameters and dual generation/checking implications, the description is too thin.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has full description coverage for all nine parameters, including defaults, examples, and algorithm choices. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: creates time-based one-time passwords using standard TOTP algorithms. It adds useful context about authenticator-app compatibility, though it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as HMACGenerator or PasswordGenerator.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer the appropriate use case from the name and schema alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All APIVerve tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.