Start ManaBuy browser login and return a login URL. Use this when a ManaBuy action requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| openBrowser | No | Whether to open the login URL in the default browser. | |
| timeoutSeconds | No | How long the login URL should remain valid. | |
| waitForCallback | No | Wait for a local callback. Use false for hosted HTTP MCP; true only for local stdio MCP. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals a key output (login URL) and its role as an auth initiation, but omits important behavioral details: whether it invalidates an existing session, how authentication completes, or any side effects. This is minimally adequate but not rich.
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-load the core action and output, with no unnecessary words. The second sentence clarifies the exact use case. Very concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover the flow more thoroughly. While it mentions the login URL, it does not clarify the asynchronous nature, how to complete the login, or that the follow-up status can be checked via get_login_status. It is minimally sufficient but leaves notable gaps.
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 each parameter (openBrowser, timeoutSeconds, waitForCallback) already has descriptive text. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Start' with a clear resource ('ManaBuy browser login') and states the output ('return a login URL'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_login_status and logout_manabuy by focusing on initiating the auth flow.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use this when a ManaBuy action requires authentication', providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, which is a minor gap.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: auth (login/logout/status), product discovery (search/detail), ordering (quote/create/status/detail). There is no functional overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as search_products, create_order, get_login_status. Even login_manabuy and logout_manabuy fit the pattern with the domain as the object.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for the ManaBuy ordering domain. Each tool covers a necessary step in the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers product discovery, quoting, order creation, order status/detail tracking, and session management. A notable gap is the lack of a cancel order or list orders capability, but the core purchasing flow is complete.
