Authenticate with Mealie via OAuth to obtain the token required for authorized API requests.
Oauth Login — Users: Authentication. Get oauth. [GET /api/auth/oauth] Keywords: oauth_login, oauth login, get oauth, fetch oauth, read oauth, retrieve oauth, view oauth, show oauth, oauth, users authentication, auth, get, fetch, read, retrieve, view, show, read-only, mealie.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The GET endpoint and 'read-only' keyword hint at a read operation, but the description does not explain authentication requirements, return behavior, redirects, or side effects.
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?
The core description is short but poorly structured, and the large keyword list adds substantial noise without improving invocation guidance. Every keyword does not earn its place for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.
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?
For an authentication endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify the OAuth flow context, what the caller receives, or how this step relates to oauth_callback and token retrieval.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score for a zero-parameter tool is 4.
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 largely restates the name 'Oauth Login' and adds only 'Get oauth' plus the endpoint, which is vague rather than a clear verb+resource explanation. It does not explain what is actually retrieved or how this tool differs from siblings such as oauth_callback, get_token, or refresh_token.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other authentication tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, flow order, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.