Begin Sella agent authentication. Sends a 6-digit verification code to the given email. Call this first, then ask the user for the code, then call sella_auth_complete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The email address to authenticate with | ||
| source | No | Optional: where this agent heard about Sella (e.g. "moltbook"). Purely for attribution, never required. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / sourceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: where this agent heard about Sella (e.g. \"moltbook\"). Purely for attribution, never required.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the side effect (sending a code) beyond annotations, which only mark readOnlyHint=false. Missing potential detail on error handling or rate limits, but sufficient for this simple mutation.
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?
Three concise sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the flow, including the next step (calling sella_auth_complete). Complete in context.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the description adds marginal value. It mentions the email parameter implicitly, but does not enrich understanding beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it begins authentication by sending a 6-digit code to an email, and distinguishes from the sibling sella_auth_complete by specifying the sequence. This is specific and actionable.
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?
Explicitly says 'Call this first, then ask the user for the code, then call sella_auth_complete,' providing clear when-to-use and sequential guidance.
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.