Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sophtron-mcp

sophtron-mcp

by GraysonCAdams
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Answer MFA Challenge

answer_mfa

Submit multi-factor authentication responses like security answers, verification codes, or captchas to complete account verification and proceed with financial data retrieval.

Instructions

Submit an MFA response (security question answer, verification code, captcha, etc.)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "jobId": "<jobId>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "answer_mfa"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesType of MFA challenge
jobIdYesJob ID
valueYesThe answer/code/choice

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description states the action clearly as submitting an MFA response, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not disclose behavioral consequences such as consuming the pending challenge, advancing the job, or error behavior if the answer is wrong.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the verb front-loaded and parenthetical examples that are compact and informative. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no description of the surrounding MFA flow, the source of jobId, or what to do after submitting a response. For a mutation tool in a multi-step connection workflow, this is an incomplete picture.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description's parenthetical examples loosely mirror the type enum and value semantics, but add little meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Submit' plus the resource 'MFA response' and gives concrete examples (security question answer, verification code, captcha). It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which deal with MFA challenges.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool, such as after a connection flow returns an MFA challenge or after a poll_job indicates MFA is required. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so an agent must infer the usage context from the tool name and siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools