Keelen

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 -> save it as this
server's `Authorization: Bearer <api_key>` header in your MCP client config
-> reconnect -> get_onboarding_status() to continue setup. The code expires
in 15 minutes; call signup again to resend. 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.

ASK THE USER for `email` in chat and WAIT for their answer before calling
this. Do NOT infer it from your client profile, the logged-in account, git
config, or any other ambient source; if you already hold a candidate, echo
it back and get 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

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond these flags: it emails a code, expires in 15 minutes, is enumeration-safe, rate-limited per IP/email, and doubles as login with potential to sign the user into an unintended account. It also discloses that calling signup again resends the code. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and security 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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place. The core action and flow are front-loaded, followed by expiration, enumeration-safety, rate-limiting, and a crucial user-consent admonition. It is structured with a clear sequence and prioritized warnings; no filler exists. This is a model of efficient technical writing for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's sensitivity (auth and account creation) and the absence of rich schema descriptions, the description covers all essential aspects: prerequisites (unauthenticated), flow, expected inputs, security implications, rate limits, and behavior. The output schema is provided separately, so return-value details are not required. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and only one parameter (email), the description must add meaning. It clarifies that 'email' is where the 6-digit code is sent and is the address used for account/login. It also frames email as security-sensitive, instructing the agent to confirm it with the user. This goes beyond the bare schema definition, though it does not specify email format validation or edge cases, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: 'Create a Keelen account (or start agent login) — emails a 6-digit code.' It also clarifies the tool's dual role as signup and login, and distinguishes it from verify_email and other post-auth tools by noting it works 'before a bearer key is configured'. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose that an agent can act on.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'UNAUTHENTICATED — the only tool besides verify_email that works before a bearer key is configured.' It also gives a step-by-step flow (signup -> verify_email -> save key -> reconnect) and a critical instruction: 'ASK THE USER for email in chat and WAIT for their answer.' It warns against inferring the email from ambient sources and explains the consequences of guessing. This leaves no ambiguity about correct usage.

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.