Skip to main content
Glama

TeamShared

by io.github.xhad

Mcp Auth

mcp_auth

Last-resort email + OTP bind for this MCP session (headless only).

Prefer account-level Cursor Connect (Cloud / Grok Bot inherit it) or a tsk_ header. Do not call this as the first hop. When the host has no token:

  1. mcp_auth(email="you@example.com") — we email a 6-digit code.

  2. Ask the human for the code, then mcp_auth(email="you@example.com", code="123456").

  3. If status=need_org, call again with org_id=.

After status=authenticated, later tools on this streamable-HTTP session run as that person. Do not store the code or any token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoOne-time code from the login email. Pass together with email= after mcp_auth returned status=code_sent.
emailNoEmail to send a 6-digit login code to. Same OTP as the console and Cursor Connect. Omit (with no code) to see whether this session is already signed in.
org_idNoOrganization to attach when the email belongs to more than one org (status=need_org).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the headless-only constraint, that an email with a 6-digit code is sent, that later tools 'run as that person' after authentication, and instructs not to store the code or token. This is rich behavioral context beyond any structured annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and constraints, then presents a scannable numbered workflow with code snippets. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a multi-step auth flow with no annotations, this is complete: it covers the trigger condition, alternatives, ordered calls, relevant statuses (code_sent, need_org, authenticated), session-binding consequences, and a security warning. The output schema can carry the structured status details, so nothing critical 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow-level meaning beyond the schema: it shows concrete call examples for email-only, email+code, and org_id resolution, and clarifies that omitting email checks the session state. This integration of parameters into a sequence is valuable, though not a huge leap over the already descriptive schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Last-resort email + OTP bind for this MCP session (headless only).' It distinguishes itself from account-level Cursor Connect and tsk_ header alternatives, and no sibling tool overlaps with auth, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool: only as a last resort 'When the host has no token' and 'Do not call this as the first hop.' It names preferred alternatives (Cursor Connect, tsk_ header) and provides a numbered 3-step workflow, so invocation timing is fully specified.

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

All TeamShared toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

With 104 tools across many domains (memory, work, projects, files, agents, context, strategic, ontology), the use of clear prefixes (memory_, work_, project_, file_, agent_run_, context_) makes most tools distinct. However, there are some potential confusions between memory_session_* vs memory_state_*, and memory_recall vs memory_think vs memory_assemble_context, though descriptions clarify their specific purposes. Aliases like memory_playbook_get for memory_procedure_get are explicit and reduce ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: prefix_domain_action (e.g., file_create, work_update, memory_recall, agent_run_start). All use snake_case, with verbs consistently placed after the domain prefix. Even less common tools like account_brief and attention_snapshot fit the overall naming scheme, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

At 104 tools, this is an exceptionally large surface area, far exceeding the 25+ threshold that feels heavy. However, the server covers an extensive domain (organizational memory, work management, project tracking, file sharing, agent orchestration, and strategic planning), which justifies a large count. Still, the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., many memory_session_* and memory_state_* variants).

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose, covering CRUD operations for files, work items, projects, and memory, plus lifecycle management for agents, sessions, and strategic plans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct memory_item_get by ID, no section removal in projects), but agents can work around these using existing tools like memory_recall or work_create with parent_id. Overall, the set minimizes dead ends.

Resources