loginClaude Code plugin login only (auth_token flow). On the web/desktop connector, identity comes from the connector's OAuth approval — do NOT ask the user to type their email/password into the chat; direct them to the connector's 'Log in with Ripostiq' or ripostiq.com instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| password | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the minimal destructiveHint annotation by explaining the auth_token flow and explicitly warning against asking users to enter credentials in the chat for other connectors. It adds meaningful behavioral context about scope and limitations, though it does not detail side effects like token storage or session behavior.
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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses two focused sentences. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant filler.
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 login tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key contextual differentiator (Claude Code plugin vs web/desktop connector) and provides actionable guidance. It could be more complete by mentioning the outcome of the login or error handling, but the core usage context is well covered.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the email and password parameters, but it only mentions them in passing while warning against using them on other connectors. It does not add meaningful semantics about how the parameters are used, expected formats, or relationship to the auth_token flow.
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 tool's specific purpose: 'Claude Code plugin login only (auth_token flow).' It distinguishes this tool from the web/desktop connector login by explaining the different auth contexts, making it easy to select correctly among sibling tools.
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?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: this tool is only for Claude Code plugin auth_token flow, and for web/desktop connector, the user should be directed to the connector's OAuth login instead. This clearly states when to use and when not to use the tool, including specific alternatives.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few overlap or share boundaries: get_lesson vs teach_section (lesson vs section), recall_questions vs daily_drill (both spaced recall), and get_recap vs get_progress (both progress summaries). Descriptions generally help, but these pairs could cause misselection.
The vast majority follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_outline, begin_course, submit_exam, etc.). Minor deviations include daily_drill (adjective_noun), interview_prep (noun_noun), login, roast, and whoami (single words), but the overall style is consistent and readable.
24 tools is on the heavy side (16-25 feels bloated), though the platform spans courses, exams, interviews, artifacts, and user management, so the breadth is defensible. Some tools could be consolidated (e.g., recall_questions and daily_drill), making it feel slightly over-scoped.
Core learner workflows are covered: discover, start, learn, assess, track, and resume. However, descriptions reference missing tools like get_review and save_artifact, creating dead ends. There's also no tool for authoring/managing courses, even though list_courses mentions user-authored courses, leaving notable gaps.