obtain_tokenAuthenticate users with username and password and return a Bearer JWT access token for accessing bsm-mcp server operations.
Authenticate using username and password to receive a Bearer JWT access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| password | Yes | ||
| username | Yes | ||
| remember_me | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token_type | No | ||
| access_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the output type (a Bearer JWT access token), but says nothing about token expiry, session duration, credential validation, or failure behavior, and does not explain what 'remember_me' changes.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and the result with zero filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, for an authentication tool with no annotations, the description omits token lifecycle, error handling, and the meaning of 'remember_me', leaving gaps an agent would want filled.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only names username and password with no format or semantic detail. The optional 'remember_me' parameter is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 verb (Authenticate) and a concrete outcome (receive a Bearer JWT access token), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not name or differentiate from siblings, but none of the listed siblings perform authentication, so the distinction is naturally unambiguous.
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 explicit guidance on when to call this tool, whether it must precede other operations, or what to do with the returned token. No alternatives exist among the siblings, so routing is trivial, but the description still leaves sequencing and prerequisites to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.