Skip to main content
Glama

InsideOut (Riley)

by com.luthersystems.app

Await Cloud Credentials

credawait
Idempotent

Wait for the user to securely connect their cloud account and subscribe to Luther Systems. Polls until credentials appear on the session.

🎯 USE THIS TOOL WHEN: tfdeploy returns an 'auth_required', 'no_credentials', or 'credentials_expired' error.

The user needs to visit the connect URL to:

  1. Connect their cloud credentials (AWS or GCP)

  2. Sign up and subscribe to a Luther Systems plan (required for deployment)

This secure connection allows InsideOut to deploy and manage infrastructure in the user's cloud account on their behalf. Credentials are handled securely and only used for deployment and management sessions.

WORKFLOW:

  1. FIRST: Present the connect URL and explanation to the user (from the tfdeploy error response)

  2. THEN: Call this tool to begin polling for credentials

  3. The user opens the URL in their browser to subscribe and add credentials

  4. When credentials are found, inform the user and call tfdeploy to deploy

IMPORTANT: Do NOT call this tool without first showing the connect URL to the user. The user needs to see the URL to complete the process.

REQUIRES: session_id from convoopen response (format: sess_v2_...). OPTIONAL: cloud ('aws' or 'gcp'), timeout (integer, seconds to wait, default 300, max 600).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cloudNoCloud provider whose credentials are awaited: 'aws' or 'gcp'. Defaults to 'aws'.
timeoutNoMax seconds to wait for the user to complete the browser-based credential connect flow. Default 300, max 600.
session_idYesSession ID from convoopen — pass back EXACTLY as returned, including the ?token=... suffix (format: sess_v2_*?token=*). The suffix is part of the session credential; never strip it when summarizing.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description discloses polling behavior, timeout handling, secure credential handling, and the prerequisite of showing the URL. It explains that the tool 'polls until credentials appear' and that credentials are 'handled securely and only used for deployment and management sessions.'

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with a workflow section and important notes, and it front-loads the core purpose. While it is somewhat lengthy, each sentence carries useful information; minor redundancy exists with parameter details already in the schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and a required user interaction, the description is complete: it covers the trigger condition, workflow steps, prerequisites, and follow-up action (call tfdeploy after credentials are found). The agent has all necessary context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (cloud, timeout, session_id) already described in detail including defaults and format constraints. The description repeats these details without adding new semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Wait for the user to securely connect their cloud account and subscribe to Luther Systems. Polls until credentials appear on the session.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like tfdeploy by tying its use to specific error conditions from tfdeploy.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit guidance is given: 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN: tfdeploy returns an auth_required, no_credentials, or credentials_expired error.' It also includes a workflow with prerequisites and a warning: 'Do NOT call this tool without first showing the connect URL to the user.' This fully covers when and how to use it versus alternatives.

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

All InsideOut (Riley) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with clear domain prefixes (convo*, tf*, stack*, aws/gcp inspect) separating conversation, deployment, versioning, and cloud inspection. The batch variants (awsinspect_batch, gcpinspect_batch) are explicitly scoped as higher-throughput versions of their singular counterparts, so no ambiguity exists.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is mostly consistent: lowercase concatenated verb_noun patterns dominate (convoopen, tfdeploy, stackrollback, awsinspect). However, submit_feedback uses snake_case, and help stands alone as a generic utility, breaking the otherwise uniform lowercase-concatenated style.

Tool Count4/5

24 tools is on the heavier side, but the count is justified by the breadth of the domain: conversation workflow, multi-cloud inspection, Terraform lifecycle, stack versioning, and utilities. Each tool fills a distinct role, so while slightly high, the count is not bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full infrastructure lifecycle: conversation and design (convoopen/convoreply/convostatus), Terraform generation and deployment (tfgenerate/tfplan/tfdeploy), monitoring (tfstatus/tflogs), teardown (tfdestroy), drift detection, stack versioning, and cloud inspection. No critical dead ends; only a missing explicit cancel/abort for running jobs is a minor gap.

Resources