connect_verifyFinish signing in: call right after connect_start with no code; it waits for the Confirm click (if it returns waiting, call again; never ask the user). Or pass the code they read you. Returns an api_key (shown once) and, without a connection session, a session to pass on every later call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / code / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / code / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / code / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "request_id",
- "code"
-]New value: +[
+ "request_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it blocks waiting for a Confirm click, can return 'waiting' and be called again, exposes the api_key only once, and returns a session to reuse later. These details meaningfully shape how the agent should invoke and handle the tool.
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 dense but compact, with essential operational guidance and output information packed into two sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler or repetition.
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?
It covers the branching flows, retry behavior, and return values despite the absence of an output schema. The only notable gap is that the required request_id's provenance is implied rather than explicitly stated, leaving a small inference burden on the agent.
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?
The description clarifies the optional 'code' parameter (no code vs. a code the user read aloud), which the schema alone does not convey. However, the required 'request_id' parameter is never explicitly explained as coming from connect_start, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description does not fully compensate for all parameters.
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 states a specific action ('Finish signing in') and target (connecting an account), and differentiates it clearly from siblings by anchoring to connect_start. It also describes the outcome (returns api_key and session), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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?
It gives explicit sequencing: call right after connect_start with no code, retry if it returns waiting, never ask the user, and alternatively pass the user-provided code. This is precise, actionable guidance that also tells the agent what not to do.
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.