drop2run-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Sign in to Drop2Run

login

Signs in through your local browser and stores an access token that all other tools reuse, without pasting tokens by hand. Use login_code instead on containers or remote hosts.

Instructions

Signs in through a browser on this machine and stores an access token, which every other tool then uses. Opens the browser here and waits for the person to approve. If it answers that nothing has been approved yet, call it again to keep waiting — that is not a failure. Needs no command line and no token pasted by hand. Where no browser can open on this machine — a container, a remote host — use login_code instead.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "login"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`replace`	No	Sign in even though a token is already stored. Use when switching accounts, or when the stored token is being refused.
`waitSeconds`	No	How long this call waits for the approval before answering. Default 120.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.1Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds what the annotations cannot: a human approval step in a browser on this machine, a stored token consumed by every other tool, retry-until-approved semantics, and no CLI or pasted token required. That is substantive context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, then the retry rule, then the alternative. It runs slightly long with em-dash asides, but each sentence carries distinct information (mechanism, retry behavior, no-token requirement, fallback tool) rather than restating the title.

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 an auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the interaction model, the expected 'not approved yet' response, the retry expectation, and the environment-based fallback. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the ambiguous response.

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%, so both parameters (replace, waitSeconds) are already fully documented in the schema, including defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is 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 ('Signs in through a browser on this machine and stores an access token') and immediately names the sibling it is not — login_code — with the condition that selects it. An agent can distinguish it from every other tool in the sibling list without opening a schema.

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 explicit routing: use login normally, use login_code where no browser can open (container, remote host). It also covers the non-obvious retry case — 'call it again to keep waiting — that is not a failure' — which prevents an agent from abandoning a valid flow.

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