Keelen

Create Account or Log In

signup

Destructive

Create a Keelen account (or start agent login) — emails a 6-digit code.

UNAUTHENTICATED — the only tool besides verify_email that works before a
bearer key is configured. `email` is where the code is sent. Flow:
signup(email) -> the user reads the 6-digit code from their inbox ->
verify_email(email, code) returns a reveal-once API key, stored as this
server's `Authorization: Bearer <api_key>` header in the MCP client config;
reconnecting the client and calling get_onboarding_status() then continues
setup. The code expires in 15 minutes; a repeat signup resends it. Response
is uniform whether or not the email already has an account
(enumeration-safe), so signup doubles as agent LOGIN. Rate-limited per IP
and per email.

The `email` must be explicitly provided and confirmed by the user in chat
before this call. It is not inferred from a client profile, the logged-in
account, git config, or any other ambient source; a candidate address the
caller already holds is echoed back for an explicit yes first. Because this
call doubles as LOGIN, a guessed address signs the user in to whatever
workspace owns it, and the rest of setup then mints an API key on, and
creates a project in, an account they did not choose.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). It discloses the 15-minute code expiry, that a repeat signup resends, that responses are enumeration-safe/uniform, that it is rate-limited per IP and per email, and warns that a guessed address signs the user into another account. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the flow, and nearly every sentence earns its place given the destructive/login semantics. There is some redundancy between the 'explicitly confirmed' paragraph and the final warning about a guessed address, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the single param plus auth state, flow, prerequisites, expiration, and rate limits are all covered. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for the single `email` parameter, so the description must carry the load — and it does: it explains that email is where the code is sent, that it must be explicitly provided and user-confirmed, and that it must not be inferred from client/git/ambient sources. It does not add format syntax, but semantic meaning is well covered.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a Keelen account ... emails a 6-digit code') and immediately frames the dual role as login. It distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring it is one of only two unauthenticated tools and by naming verify_email as its flow partner, so an agent can separate it from the many authenticated tools without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use: 'UNAUTHENTICATED — the only tool besides verify_email that works before a bearer key is configured.' It lays out the exact call sequence (signup -> verify_email -> get_onboarding_status) and states the precondition that email must be user-confirmed before calling. Alternatives are named rather than left to inference.

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

All Keelen tools Inspect

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.