ponisha-mcp

ponisha_login_password

Log in to Ponisha with mobile/email and password stored in environment variables; saves a session token locally for subsequent project, bid, and message actions without exposing credentials in chat.

Instructions

Log in with mobile/email + password taken from the PONISHA_USERNAME and PONISHA_PASSWORD environment variables (credentials never pass through the conversation). The session token is stored in ~/.ponisha-mcp/session.json.

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": "ponisha_login_password"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only cover safety flags (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context: credentials come from PONISHA_USERNAME/PONISHA_PASSWORD and never traverse the conversation, and the session token is persisted to ~/.ponisha-mcp/session.json — a concrete side effect an agent should know about. Failure behavior (missing env vars, bad credentials) is not described.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. The authentication method is front-loaded and the credential source and session persistence follow in a sensible order.

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?

For a zero-parameter authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: credential source, secrecy guarantee, and where the resulting token lives. Only error conditions and precedence versus OTP login or session-status checks are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema offers nothing to explain. The description usefully explains where the effective inputs (username and password) actually come from — environment variables — which is the only parameter-like semantics that matter here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Log in with mobile/email + password'. The method (password credentials from environment variables) implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling OTP login tools, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the tool's nature (authenticate before other calls), but there is no explicit 'use this when not authenticated', no instruction to check ponisha_session_status first, and no guidance on choosing between this and ponisha_login_otp_request/verify.

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

Deploy Server