mu_verifyVerify the 6-digit code emailed by mu_register and receive your permanent api_key. Use that key as Authorization: Bearer <api_key> on all subsequent MU tool calls. No authentication required for this call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The 6-digit code from the verification email. | |
| Yes | The email used in mu_register. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that no authentication is needed for this call and explains the output (api_key) and its usage, which is critical for the agent.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with action. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, input constraints, output, and follow-up usage. It is complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by specifying '6-digit code' and clarifying 'email used in mu_register', providing context beyond the schema.
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 verifies a 6-digit code from mu_register and returns an api_key. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mu_register by specifying the verification step.
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?
The description explains when to use it (after receiving code from mu_register) and how to use the resulting api_key for subsequent calls. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is clear.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose; no two tools appear to do the same thing. Even closely related tools (e.g., mu_quote vs mu_rfq_create, mu_preview_mockup vs mu_create_product) are differentiated by read-only vs. action, or draft vs. send.
Tool names consistently use snake_case with the mu_ prefix, and follow a clear verb_noun or noun_verb pattern. Groups like mu_gi_*, mu_ship_*, mu_rfq_* maintain internal consistency. No arbitrary or ambiguous names.
The tool count of 28 is on the higher side but appropriate for the breadth of functionality (registration, product lifecycle, manufacturing, shipping, sales, admin). It's well within a manageable range for a comprehensive server.
The tool surface covers core workflows comprehensively: registration, product CRUD (with create, update, retire), manufacturing quotes (informational and RFQ with spec drafting), shipping (CSV, tracking, status updates), sales data, and gi-specific management. Minor gaps include lack of store update/delete and product search, but these are not critical for the main use cases.