loginLog in with email + password. Returns a bearer token. NOTE: accounts created via register_account have NO password by default — reuse the token from register instead. If you have no password, first call set_password (while still authenticated with your register token), or use the human email-OTP flow in a browser.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| password | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of returning a bearer token and the critical caveat that register_account users have no password by default. It doesn't mention error cases or whether login invalidates existing tokens, but the main unexpected behavior is clearly explained.
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 main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the NOTE adds necessary edge-case handling without fluff. Every sentence serves a function.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It clearly defines the operation, the return value, and the known edge case concerning accounts created via register_account.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It states that email and password are the login credentials, and the note explains the case where a password may not exist, which directly helps the agent decide whether to pass this parameter or use an alternative.
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?
States a specific verb ('Log in'), the required credentials (email + password), and the output (bearer token). It also distinguishes itself from register_account and set_password by explaining that registered accounts may not have a password.
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 explains when to use this tool (when you have email + password) and provides clear alternatives when you don't: reuse the registration token, call set_password, or use the OTP flow. This is a concrete when/when-not proper condition and mentions sibling tools by name.
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.
Tools are cleanly separated into auth, billing, VPS lifecycle, tickets, and delegation, and each maps to a distinct resource/action. A few pairs like set_password vs reset_password and pay_invoice vs topup_balance share surface similarity, but their descriptions draw clear boundaries.
Naming is strongly consistent with verb_noun snake_case patterns such as order_vps, list_tickets, and revoke_delegation. Minor deviations are the bare CLI-style verbs login and whoami, plus the slightly awkward topup_balance, but these do not undermine the overall pattern.
27 tools is on the high side, but the server covers several distinct subdomains—account management, billing, VPS operations, support tickets, and delegations—and each tool appears to earn its place. The count is heavy but not unreasonable for the breadth of functionality exposed.
Core workflows are covered end-to-end: account creation/login, ordering and provisioning, power/reinstall/cancel, ticket conversations, and delegation management all have the necessary operations. Minor gaps exist, such as no change-password tool, no explicit RDNS/console tool despite delegation mentioning them, and no plan upgrade/downgrade tool.