aivy-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

verify_registration

Confirms the emailed registration code and completes signup by creating an Aivy account and storing an API key locally for future tool access.

Instructions

Create an Aivy account from the chat, step 2 of 2: confirms the emailed code, accepts the terms (only pass accept_terms=true after the person said yes), creates the account and an API key, and stores that key on this computer (~/.aivy/credentials.json) so every other tool works from now on, in this and future sessions. scope read (observe) or control (may change settings; only if the person asked). Never repeat the key back; say it is saved and can be managed at https://bridge.ivyenergy.com.au/account.

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": {
      "registration_id": "<registration_id>",
      "registration_session": "<registration_session>",
      "code": "<code>",
      "accept_terms": "<accept_terms>"
    },
    "name": "verify_registration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`code`	Yes
`scope`	No	read
`key_name`	No	chat
`accept_terms`	Yes
`registration_id`	Yes
`registration_session`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that an account AND API key are created, that the key is persisted to ~/.aivy/credentials.json, that this unblocks every other tool in this and future sessions, and that the key must never be echoed back. That is exactly the side-effect and security context an agent needs before a write operation.

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 and step number, then the safety constraints. It is dense and somewhat run-on in places (scope and the never-repeat-key rule are packed mid-sentence), but nearly every clause conveys actionable information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation's side effects, persistence, and consent rules thoroughly for a no-annotation tool. The remaining gap is provenance: it never says where registration_id and registration_session come from, which an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain all six parameters. It adds real meaning for code (the emailed code), accept_terms (consent gate), and scope (read vs control semantics), but says nothing about key_name, registration_id, or registration_session, leaving three parameters opaque.

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 ('Create an Aivy account'), positions it precisely as 'step 2 of 2' that 'confirms the emailed code', and lists the concrete side effects (account, API key, credentials file). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling register_account and get_registration_terms.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit conditional guidance: only pass accept_terms=true after the person said yes, and choose scope read/control 'only if the person asked'. The 'step 2 of 2' framing implies register_account must run first, but the prior tool is never named outright, leaving one inference step.

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