Skip to main content
Glama

scribo

by io.github.causa-prima-ai

verify_email_code

Use this after create_invoice returns verification_required. Arguments: { challenge_id, code }. On success returns a verification_token. Retry create_invoice with the same arguments plus that verification_token passed in its verification_token field. The token is reusable for ~30 min, so thread the same one into every subsequent create_invoice for the same sender email until it expires.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe 6-character code copied from the verification email body. Drawn from the confusable-free alphabet {2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}.
challenge_idYesThe opaque challenge id surfaced by the previous `create_invoice` `verification_required` error.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It explains the flow, token lifetime, and that it returns a `verification_token`. Does not describe error cases or side effects, but the tool's behavior is simple and well-covered.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Well-structured logically: when to use, arguments, what returns, next step, token details.

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?

Completely explains the tool's role in a multi-step process, including the token's reusable nature and integration with `create_invoice`. No output schema, but return value is described adequately.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds significant context: `code` uses a confusable-free alphabet, `challenge_id` comes from the previous error. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is used after `create_invoice` returns `verification_required`, and specifies it takes `challenge_id` and `code` to return a `verification_token`. This distinguishes it from siblings like `create_invoice`, `get_invoice`, and `list_supported_jurisdictions` by its specific role in the verification flow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use (after `verification_required` error) and what to do next (retry `create_invoice` with token). Mentions token reusability for ~30 min. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, 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.

All scribo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: creating invoices, retrieving them, listing supported jurisdictions, and verifying email codes. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (create_invoice, get_invoice, list_supported_jurisdictions, verify_email_code), making the set predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for invoice generation and retrieval, covering the essential operations without excess or deficiency.

Completeness4/5

The set covers core invoice creation, retrieval, jurisdiction queries, and the verification flow. A listing tool is missing, but for a Phase 1 server focused on individual invoices, the surface is largely complete.

Resources