Authenticate your Avito.ma account using locally configured credentials or an access token to enable account management features.
Se connecter avec AVITO_USERNAME et AVITO_PASSWORD configurés localement. Un AVITO_ACCESS_TOKEN fourni peut aussi être utilisé. Ne renvoie aucun jeton. La connexion est également automatique au premier outil nécessitant le compte.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare the mutation/session profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it returns no token, the credential sources, and the auto-login side effect. It doesn't describe failure modes (e.g., invalid credentials), so it is not a 5.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and credential mechanics, with no filler. Every sentence carries information, though the auto-login note could arguably be merged or ordered more prominently.
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 output schema, the description compensates by stating that no token is returned, and it covers the available authentication paths and the automatic-login behavior. For a zero-parameter auth tool this is nearly complete; only error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.
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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description usefully explains that inputs are environment-configured rather than passed as arguments, which resolves the natural question of how this parameterless tool receives credentials.
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 ("se connecter") and the resource context (the Avito account), and it distinguishes itself from session siblings like avito_logout/avito_session_status by being the operation that establishes a session. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling it is not, so it lands just under a 5.
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 real when-to-use context: credentials come from local AVITO_USERNAME/AVITO_PASSWORD, an AVITO_ACCESS_TOKEN can substitute, and crucially it notes login is automatic on the first account-requiring tool — implying the agent often doesn't need to call this at all. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it is not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.