Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Unseen Workflow Compiler

by io.github.eyeinthesky6
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Sign In with Email + Password

auth_login

Legacy sign-in for an existing password account. Account creation and password setup require verified browser sign-in. ChatGPT/Codex plugin connections use browser OAuth instead of this tool.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "password": "<password>"
    },
    "name": "auth_login"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOptional display name when registering.
emailYesThe user's email address.
passwordYesAccount password (min 8 characters).
registerNoDeprecated. Registration through this tool is rejected; use verified browser sign-in.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / register / description
      Previous value: -"Set to true to register a new Email + Password account if it does not exist yet."New value: +"Deprecated. Registration through this tool is rejected; use verified browser sign-in."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured context: this is a legacy path, registration through it is rejected, and plugin connections must use browser OAuth. It omits what happens on success (session/token issuance) and any lockout or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case followed by the two exclusion rules. No filler or repetition, and each sentence carries distinct routing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no return-value documentation, the description leaves an agent guessing what a successful call yields (session token, cookie, user object) and how credentials persist. It fully covers when-to-use and rejection behavior, but the auth result contract is a meaningful gap for a sign-in tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the deprecated 'register' flag and its rejection. The description reinforces that registration is unavailable but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('sign-in for an existing password account') and flags the tool as legacy, which is enough to separate it from a modern auth flow. It does not name the OTP siblings (auth_request_otp/auth_verify_otp) directly, so differentiation is by scope rather than by explicit sibling reference.

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 scopes use to existing password accounts and rules out account creation and ChatGPT/Codex plugin connections, pointing those to browser sign-in/OAuth. It stops short of routing OTP-based or passwordless flows to the sibling OTP tools, leaving one alternative unstated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Unseen Workflow Compiler toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources