Poll after start_signup. Returns { status: "pending" } until the user presses the button in the email, then { status: "ready", apiKey } exactly once; the pollToken is dead after that. Poll every 5 seconds for up to 15 minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pollToken | Yes | The pollToken returned by start_signup. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the full polling lifecycle: pending until the email button is pressed, ready exactly once, and the pollToken becoming dead afterward. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent critical expected 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?
Two sentences deliver the purpose, expected return states, uniqueness guarantee, polling interval, and timeout. Nothing is redundant, and the most important instruction is front-loaded.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description fully explains return values, transition behavior, token invalidation, and polling limits. For a single-parameter polling tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.
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?
The schema already fully documents pollToken, so the high coverage gives a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful lifecycle context by stating that the pollToken is dead after the ready state, which is not in the schema.
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 identifies the action as polling after start_signup and defines the return states. It distinguishes itself from the sibling by naming the temporal relationship ('Poll after start_signup').
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?
It explicitly says to poll after start_signup and gives precise polling cadence and duration. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the sequencing and timeout guidance are clear enough for correct use.
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.
start_signup and check_signup have clearly distinct roles: one initiates the email signup flow, the other polls for its result. There is no overlap in purpose or action.
Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern with start_ and check_. The naming is consistent, predictable, and appropriately signals the temporal relationship between the tools.
Only two tools exist, which is below the typical 3-15 range, but the server's scope is a single signup flow. Each tool is necessary and earns its place, so the count is reasonable if minimal.
For the stated purpose of obtaining a Usero API key via email confirmation, the surface is complete: start_signup initiates the flow and check_signup retrieves the key once ready. No critical operation is missing for this narrow domain.