Blocks until the login server reports a successful login, then shuts it down and returns the captured login information. Use it to wait for browser-based login completion.
Block until the login server (started by login) reports a successful login, then shut it down. Returns the captured login info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | Max wait in milliseconds (default 300000 = 5 min) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the two most important traits: the call blocks, and it destroys the server afterward (a destructive teardown side effect). It adds that login info is returned. It omits what happens on timeout expiry (error vs. partial result) and whether it is safe to call more than once.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the blocking precondition, followed by the side effect and the return value. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.
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?
The blocking/teardown semantics are covered, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the timeout failure mode and roughly what 'captured login info' contains. As written an agent knows how to invoke it but not how it fails.
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% and the single `timeout` parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default and unit. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 sequence and resource: block until the login server reports success, then shut it down, and return the login info. It also ties itself to the sibling `login` as the producer of that server, which helps distinguish it from `i_login`/`i_check_auth`. It stops short of naming which sibling to use when this isn't the right call.
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 phrase 'started by login' implies the prerequisite call, which is genuinely useful ordering guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not, no mention of the alternative login paths (`i_login_with_password`, `i_login_with_sms`, `i_login_with_cookie`), and no statement of what to do if login was never started.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.