Completes the login flow by checking browser authorization, saving the credential, and confirming connection; if not authorized, prompts you to authorize and rerun.
Conclui o login iniciado por guard_login: verifica se você já autorizou no navegador. Se sim, salva a credencial e responde "Conectado". Se ainda não, avisa e você roda de novo depois de autorizar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It discloses a real side effect beyond the annotations: on success it saves the credential and returns "Conectado", while on failure it only warns and requires a retry. This explains the non-idempotent, non-read-only nature declared in annotations by describing the credential-saving write and the pending-state behavior.
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 tight sentence-pair that front-loads the core purpose (completing the guard_login flow) before the success and retry branches. Every clause carries meaning, though the phrasing is slightly run-on.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what triggers the call, what the two possible outcomes are, and the retry rule. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing, though a note on the required prior browser authorization state could be more explicit.
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 takes zero parameters and the description correctly introduces none; 0-param tools baseline at 4. No syntax or format details are needed because there is no input to describe.
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 and resource — it concludes the login started by guard_login, explicitly framing itself as step 2 of a two-step flow. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling guard_login, which an agent can select apart without opening either schema.
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 clear sequencing context: run this after guard_login, and if the user has not yet authorized in the browser, re-run it after they do. The dependency on the sibling tool is explicit, though it does not enumerate when-not-to-use relative to other siblings like guard_logout.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.