Confirm a two-factor authentication code to securely validate user identity and authorize account changes in the Panelica hosting panel.
Verify 2FA
HTTP: POST /v1/2fa/verify Category: 2FA Required scopes: accounts:write Mutating: changes server state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Request body (application/json). Schema not statically declared — see API docs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / bodyAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Request body (application/json). Schema not statically declared — see API docs.",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds explicit confirmation that the operation changes server state. It also provides the required scopes (accounts:write). However, it omits what specific state changes occur, what the request body should contain, and what the response looks like.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core meaning, followed by essential metadata. 'Category: 2FA' is mildly redundant with the name, but overall every line is compact and purposeful.
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?
Given an opaque free-form body, no output schema, and a mutating tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks request body expectations, response format, and workflow context hinting when verification is needed. An agent would have difficulty invoking this tool correctly without external API documentation.
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 only parameter, 'body', has a description that explicitly says the schema is not statically declared and to consult API docs. The tool description adds no information about required fields such as a 2FA code or token, so an agent cannot determine what to send beyond arbitrary JSON.
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 action and resource: 'Verify 2FA' via POST /v1/2fa/verify. It is distinct from sibling tools like enable, disable, and status, though those differences are not explicitly spelled out.
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?
The description provides useful context — HTTP method, required scopes, and that it mutates server state — but does not explicitly say when to choose this over enable/disable/status. Usage is implied by the name and endpoint but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.