Process OAuth callback responses from providers to complete authorization, exchanging the authorization code via the specified method to authenticate and link the provider account.
Handle OAuth callback for a provider
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| providerId | Yes | Provider ID | |
| callbackData | Yes | OAuth callback data |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| isError | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond these flags. It does not disclose that completing the callback may store credentials, modify provider state, or require a prior authorization step. With annotations present, the description should at least add sequencing or side-effect details, which it does not.
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 description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, which is structurally efficient. However, it is under-specified – it lacks any contextual or clarifying information that would make the sentence 'earn its place'. It is not verbose, but it is also not informative enough to be considered well-structured.
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 OAuth callback tool with nested objects, an output schema, and annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the prerequisite of having called the authorize tool, the expected redirect flow, or what happens after the callback is processed. An agent lacks the context needed to correctly sequence this tool in a workflow.
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 100% – both providerId and callbackData are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or usage hints for these parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The callbackData object's 'method' and 'code' fields are already self-explanatory from the schema.
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 states a clear verb and resource ('Handle OAuth callback for a provider'), which conveys the basic function. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling 'opencode_provider_oauth_authorize' – an agent cannot tell that this is the second step of the OAuth flow (after user redirect) versus the initial authorization request. It is clear but lacks differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to invoke this tool or how it fits into the OAuth flow. There is no mention that it should be called after the user has been redirected back from the provider, nor any exclusions or alternatives. An agent has to infer the usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.