loginExchange the account's email and password for a new API key, so a terminal or an assistant can act on the account. The key is shown once; keep it. Up to five keys may be active per account (revoke_api_key frees a slot).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| label | No | A name for this key, e.g. the machine it lives on. | |
| password | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral information beyond the annotations: the API key is shown only once, users must keep it, and up to five keys may be active per account. It does not describe what happens when the limit is reached, but the mention of revoke_api_key partially covers that gap.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each additional sentence provides essential operational context: one-time key visibility and the key limit with a revocation path.
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?
For a simple authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the main result (a new API key shown once) and important constraints (key limit, revocation). It could mention what happens on failure or at the limit, but the core knowledge needed to call the tool correctly is present.
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 low (33%), with only label documented. The description helps by clarifying that email and password are the account's credentials and that they are exchanged for a new API key, but it adds little detail about password handling or the optional label. Some compensation is present, but not full.
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 specific action: exchanging account credentials for a new API key, and names the purpose of allowing a terminal or assistant to act on the account. It is distinct from ambiguous siblings like create_api_key because it emphasizes email/password authentication, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a terminal or assistant needs to act on the account, and it even warns about the five-key limit and points to revoke_api_key to free a slot. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use it or how it differs from create_api_key, but the intended scenario is clear.
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.
Tool purposes are generally distinct and well-described, but a few clusters overlap in function: answer_screening_question vs save_answer both write to the answer book, get_my_profile vs get_account both report plan status, and the CV preview/sent-CV/base-CV tools could be confused. The detailed descriptions mitigate most misselection, so this is only a minor issue.
The set almost uniformly uses snake_case verb_noun names like list_, get_, update_, create_, delete_, and start_/stop_. Minor deviations such as login, describe_what_i_want, and the get_my_* vs list_* alternation prevent a perfect score, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.
49 tools is far above the 25+ threshold and will burden agent tool selection even though many are legitimate single-purpose operations. Several groups could be consolidated—billing links, API-key management, and the CV PDF family—without hurting clarity.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: account creation/auth, profile and CV, targeting, matching, apply runs, screening answers, tracking, billing, export, and deletion. Minor gaps remain, such as no application-level detail/withdrawal endpoint and no direct way to save a parsed CV without re-uploading, but agents can work around them.