Chain.Love MCP

Bind Credentials Bag

bind_credentials_bag

Optionally bind session-scoped downstream credentials immediately after initialize. Safe to call even when no credentials are available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`analytics`	No	Optional analytics context. It is ignored by tool execution and recorded only for usage analytics.
`credentials_bag`	No	Optional session-scoped credentials map. When omitted, the server will attempt to bind credentials from request headers such as x-chainlove-cred-github.

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedAug 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / analytics

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional analytics context. It is ignored by tool execution and recorded only for usage analytics.",
+  "properties": {
+    "conversation_id": {
+      "description": "Optional conversation identifier.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "interaction_id": {
+      "description": "Optional interaction/message identifier.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "description": "Optional analytics source identifier.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "user_query": {
+      "description": "Original user query or prompt that led to this tool call, if available.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedApr 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is optional, safe to call without credentials, and session-scoped, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether existing credentials are overwritten), failure modes, or what happens after binding. The description provides moderate transparency but not a complete picture.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by a key safety note. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and a simple bind operation, the description is reasonably complete. It covers when to call (after initialize), optionality, and safety. It slightly lacks detail on consequences or return value, but these are not critical for this simple tool given the rich schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions are detailed: the analytics parameter is explicitly marked as ignored and recorded for analytics, and the credentials_bag parameter explains the fallback to request headers. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('bind'), resource ('session-scoped downstream credentials'), and timing ('immediately after initialize'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like discover_categories, execute, and search, which serve different purposes.

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 gives clear timing guidance ('immediately after initialize') and states it is optional ('Optionally'). It also notes that it is safe to call even without credentials, providing an exclusion for that scenario. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with other tools, but the sibling tools are clearly distinct operations.

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

All Chain.Love MCP tools Inspect

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

C2.9/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

The 'execute' tool is a catch-all for registry actions, connection management, and runtime actions, creating ambiguity about when to use it versus the more specific discover_* and search tools. The other tools are distinct, but the overlap with execute's broad scope causes confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix bare verbs ('execute', 'search') with verb-noun patterns ('discover_categories', 'discover_networks'), plus one compound 'bind_credentials_bag'. This inconsistent style violates the predictable convention expected in a well-coherent tool set.

Tool Count4/5

Five tools is within the ideal range for a focused MCP server. The count feels reasonable, though the broad scope of 'execute' suggests it may be absorbing many operations that could be split into more distinct tools.

Completeness3/5

The server covers discovery, search, and credential binding, but the generic 'execute' tool is the only gateway to mutations and connection management. This makes the surface technically complete but poorly structured, as significant functionality is hidden inside a single opaque entrypoint.

Resources

Need Help?