Enable Authenticator Multi-Factor Authentication for a project.
Args: project_key: Project key (tenant ID). Uses global tenant_id if not provided
Returns: JSON string with Authenticator MFA configuration result
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 project_key fallback behavior, but fails to mention any side effects, prerequisites, or whether this is a mutation operation that could overwrite existing settings. The description is minimal for a tool that enables security features.
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 and structured into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter enabling operation.
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?
Given the low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling enable_email_mfa, which is a minor gap for a tool in a suite with multiple MFA options.
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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the parameter's meaning ('Project key (tenant ID)') and its default behavior ('Uses global tenant_id if not provided'). This adds value beyond the empty schema description.
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 uses a specific verb ('Enable') with a clear resource ('Authenticator Multi-Factor Authentication') and scope ('for a project'). The name itself differentiates from the sibling enable_email_mfa, and the description reinforces this by specifying 'Authenticator MFA' rather than a generic MFA.
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 implies usage (enabling authenticator MFA for a project) but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like enable_email_mfa. It gives some contextual detail (project_key fallback to global tenant_id), but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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.
The tools are organized into clear domains (auth, roles, schemas, translations, projects), and within each domain, tools have distinct purposes (e.g., get_schema vs list_schemas, save_captcha_config vs update_captcha_status). A few pairs like get_auth_status and get_authentication_config could cause minor confusion, but their descriptions clarify the difference.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using predictable verbs like get, list, create, update, set, enable, and configure. Even longer names like save_module_keys_with_translations adhere to the same convention, with no mixed casing or arbitrary styles.
With 36 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range for MCP servers. While the broad platform domain justifies some breadth, the sheer volume can overwhelm agents and suggests the toolset could be consolidated or split into smaller, focused servers.
The toolset provides decent coverage for creation, listing, and some updates across entities like permissions, roles, schemas, and translations. However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for most resources, no role update, and no project update/delete, which leaves lifecycle management incomplete.
