Sends a 6-digit OTP code to the customer's email address for in-chat authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The email address of the customer. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| isError | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "type",
+ "text"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "isError": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the 6-digit code length and delivery channel, but omits rate limits, OTP expiry, session binding, or whether previous codes are invalidated.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, delivery mechanism, and authentication context; the only minor gap is that it does not explicitly relate to verify_agent_otp, but that is not essential for invoking this simple tool.
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 100% and the single email parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States the specific verb 'Sends', the resource '6-digit OTP code', the delivery target 'customer's email address', and the context 'in-chat authentication'. The verb distinguishes it from the sibling verify_agent_otp, but the description does not name that alternative explicitly.
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 phrase 'for in-chat authentication' implies the intended context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. It does not tell the agent to use verify_agent_otp for validation afterward.
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.