verify_magic_link_token
Use when the customer clicks a magic link and provides the token for verification.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes |
TaskMan of London
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'for verification' and fails to disclose whether the token is consumed, if the action is idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a verification tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, direct and free of fluff. It is appropriately sized, though it could be improved by adding a separate purpose statement. Still, it earns its place by conveying the usage condition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple single-parameter verification action with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, error conditions, or side effects, making it incomplete for an agent to know what to expect after invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'token' with minLength and maxLength but no description. The tool description refers to 'the token' without adding any meaning about its format, origin, or how it should be obtained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Use when the customer clicks a magic link and provides the token for verification,' which clearly implies the tool verifies the token. It differentiates from sibling 'verify_customer_otp' by specifying the magic link context, though it lacks an explicit verb+resource phrasing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides a trigger condition: 'when the customer clicks a magic link and provides the token.' It gives clear context for when to use, but does not mention exclusions or alternatives beyond the implied magic-link vs. OTP distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Some tools overlap in purpose, such as check_availability vs get_customer_availability and the various verification entry points. Descriptions clarify the context of each, but an agent could still misselect without careful reading.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, e.g., check_availability, create_booking_request, get_booking_status. This makes the naming predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count3/5
With 20 tools, the server is on the heavier side but the scope is broad, covering booking, customer verification, payments, and provider matching. The count feels slightly high but each tool serves a distinct step in the workflow.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the full booking lifecycle from availability and quote to payment and final creation. Notable gaps include lack of update or cancel booking operations, but the core flow is well covered.