Skip to main content
Glama

Hatch

by com.viberooster
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get pairing code

get_pairing_code

Issue a pairing code + URL (TTL 10 minutes) for claiming a hatch (hatchId) or authorizing an agent session in a workspace (workspaceId). Reuses the active pending code for this connector session unless forceNew: true. Render pairingUrl as a QR for the Vibe Rooster app — do not call again until poll_pairing returns expired/completed or you intentionally rotate with forceNew.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hatchIdNoHatch id from hatch response (consumer path).
forceNewNoWhen true, invalidate any outstanding QR and mint a new code. Default false — reuse the live pending code from whoami or a prior get_pairing_code.
tenantIdNoLegacy alias for `hatchId`.
workspaceIdNoWorkspace id for B2B agent pairing (partner path).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / forceNew
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "When true, invalidate any outstanding QR and mint a new code. Default false — reuse the live pending code from whoami or a prior get_pairing_code.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / hatchId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Hatch id from hatch response (consumer path).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / tenantId / description
      Previous value: -"Hatch id from hatch response (consumer path)."New value: +"Legacy alias for `hatchId`."
  3. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / tenantId / description
      Previous value: -"Tenant id from hatch response."New value: +"Hatch id from hatch response (consumer path)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspaceId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Workspace id for B2B agent pairing (partner path).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "tenantId"
-]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide only generic flags (`readOnlyHint` false, `idempotentHint` false), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds the 10-minute TTL, reuse of the active pending code, invalidation on `forceNew: true`, and the expectation to render `pairingUrl` as a QR code. This exceeds what annotations and schema alone convey, and there is no contradiction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three dense sentences with no filler. The action and TTL are front-loaded, the reuse semantics follow immediately, and the final sentence contains the critical operational instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description names the returned artifacts (`pairing code`, `pairingUrl`), tells the agent how to consume them (render as QR), and explains the lifecycle through `poll_pairing` and `forceNew`. For a tool with this complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description reinforces the parameter roles by tying `hatchId` to the consumer path and `workspaceId` to the B2B path. It also clarifies `forceNew` behavior by stating it invalidates the outstanding QR. It stops short of stating whether exactly one of the id parameters is required, but the schema already documents `tenantId` as a legacy alias.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Issue a pairing code + URL' and immediately names the two supported contexts: claiming a hatch via `hatchId` and authorizing an agent session via `workspaceId`. This is far more specific than the title and clearly distinguishes the tool from polling and auth siblings.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-call and when-not-to-call guidance: 'do not call again until poll_pairing returns expired/completed or you intentionally rotate with forceNew.' It also names the companion tool `poll_pairing` and explains the `forceNew` rotation path, so an agent can sequence calls correctly.

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

All Hatch toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources