Obtain an MCP key. action: login | signup (consolidated surface — same handlers as the legacy tools) Required per action — login: email, password | signup: email, password.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | [signup] Display name (optional) | |
| No | [login] Your account email address [signup] Email address for the new account | ||
| action | Yes | which operation to run | |
| password | No | [login] Your account password [signup] Password (minimum 6 characters) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false and unhelpful, so the description carries the burden. It reveals the action types and required inputs but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the returned key expires, side effects on signup, error responses, or rate limits. The phrase 'Obtain an MCP key' is a high-level result without underlying behavior.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded, conveying the essential points in one sentence. The use of colons and pipes is efficient, though slightly cryptic. It earns a high score for minimizing words while communicating the consolidated surface and per-action requirements.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns beyond 'an MCP key'—no details about the response structure, error handling, or post-conditions. Given it involves authentication with signup and login, more context about the returned key and potential side effects is necessary for correct usage.
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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by explicitly listing which parameters are required for each action ('login: email, password | signup: email, password'). This addresses a gap in the schema, which only makes 'action' formally required, while the description clarifies that email and password are necessary depending on action.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Obtain an MCP key' with specific actions (login/signup). It uses a precise verb+resource structure and differentiates itself from siblings by being the authentication entry point, especially referencing 'consolidated surface' and 'legacy tools'.
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?
The description provides usage guidance by noting it is a consolidated surface replacing legacy tools ('same handlers as the legacy tools') and clarifies per-action required parameters. It does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools, but the context makes it clear when to use this tool.
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.
Most tools clearly target distinct resources (tasks, docs, graph, sync, env_sync, handoffs, judgments, projects, vault). A few pairs could confuse, like sync_push vs vault_sync (which has a push action) and env_sync_write vs env_sync_txn_push, but descriptions mostly clarify boundaries.
Names are predominantly snake_case with a noun_verb pattern (e.g., sync_push, task_write), but there are notable inconsistencies: plural/singular mismatches (dev_docs_read vs dev_doc_write, tasks_read vs task_write), verb-first names (list_papers, get_setup_guide, judgment_submit), and a dotted sub-namespace (env_sync.secret_pull) mixed with flat names (env_sync_txn_push).
35 tools is a large surface for a personal note/sync server. While it spans many domains (auth, tasks, docs, sync, env_sync, graph, etc.), the sheer number feels heavy and likely overwhelms agents with too many choices, especially when several tools are consolidated sub-action surfaces.
Most domains have reasonable CRUD coverage (tasks, dev docs, graph, sync, env_sync, vault). However, noticeable gaps exist: memory has no write tool (only read), papers only support listing (no create/update/delete), assumptions have write but no dedicated read or delete, and judgment is effectively submit-and-list only.