login_iniciarOpens a standard Microsoft Edge window so you can sign in to Google manually when the MCP session expires; your password is never seen or stored.
Abre uma janela do Microsoft Edge (normal, sem automação) para o usuário fazer login manualmente na conta Google. O MCP não vê nem guarda a senha. Use quando outra ferramenta disser que a sessão expirou.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.16.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: the browser is a normal Edge window without automation, the login is manual, and the MCP does not see or store the password. It does not explain whether the call blocks until login completes or what happens if the user closes the window.
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 and followed by privacy and usage guidance. There is no wasted text.
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 a parameterless, output-schema-free tool, the description covers the mechanism, privacy implications, and trigger condition well. The main gap is that it does not connect to login_status, which is the obvious sibling for verifying or checking login state.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. This matches the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool.
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 specific action and mechanism: opening a normal, non-automated Microsoft Edge window so the user can log into Google manually. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling login_status tool.
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?
It gives an explicit trigger: use when another tool reports that the session expired. It does not name login_status as the companion tool for checking session state or state any cases where this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.