request_sign_inGet the sign-in link. This sends no email. Open the link in a browser; the page checks that you are a person and emails you a code. Then use confirm_sign_in with that code. [no key]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| email_sent | No | ||
| connect_url | No | ||
| sign_in_url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "connect_url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "email_sent": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sign_in_url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "sign_in_url",
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it sends no email itself, and the returned link requires human verification that triggers a code. It doesn't disclose rate limits or expiry of the link, keeping it from a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the follow-up steps. The trailing '[no key]' marker is cryptic and unexplained, slightly harming clarity.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the multi-step flow is well covered. However, the undocumented email parameter leaves an incompleteness for a tool whose caller must decide what to pass.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'email' parameter is never mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no guidance on whether/how to supply an email address. This is a real gap rather than the 'no params' baseline.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get the sign-in link') and clearly delineates it from the sibling confirm_sign_in by describing the two-step flow. An agent can distinguish this tool without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly lays out the workflow: obtain the link, open it in a browser, pass the emailed code to confirm_sign_in. This tells the agent how and when to use it, though it offers no explicit 'when not to use' or fallback alternative.
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.