Skip to main content
Glama
AarsyDesign

PushNotif MCP Server

by AarsyDesign
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

login_existing_account

Read-onlyIdempotent

Authenticate an existing PushNotif account with email and password to retrieve its active API key and registered apps list, so users can connect in chat without opening the dashboard.

Instructions

Authenticate an existing PushNotif account with email and password to retrieve its active API key and registered apps list. Use this tool when an existing user wants to connect their account in chat without opening the web dashboard; do not use it for new signups (use request_registration_otp and register_new_account instead). Read-only authentication check with no credit cost, rate-limited against brute-force attempts. Returns JSON { ok, tenant: { id, name, email, api_key, credits }, apps: [{ id, site_name, site_url }] }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesRegistered PushNotif account email address
passwordYesAccount password

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / description
      Previous value: -"Alamat email akun PushNotif"New value: +"Registered PushNotif account email address"
    • changedInput schema / properties / password / description
      Previous value: -"Password akun PushNotif"New value: +"Account password"
  2. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by disclosing that it is rate-limited against brute-force attempts and carries no credit cost, which is real operational context an agent cannot get from structured fields. It stops short of describing failure/error behavior, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose before routing guidance and behavioral notes. The inline return-shape JSON is slightly dense but earns its place since no output schema exists.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-param auth tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, correct/incorrect usage, cost, rate limiting, and the exact return payload shape. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents email and password fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Authenticate an existing PushNotif account') plus what it yields (API key, apps list). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from register_new_account and request_registration_otp, so an agent can route correctly without opening sibling schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('an existing user wants to connect their account in chat without opening the web dashboard') and an explicit when-not-to-use with named alternatives for new signups. Nothing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools