Exchange the OAuth authorization code from the callback for an access token and store it, enabling authenticated Alibaba.com seller actions.
Exchange an OAuth code (from the callback) for an access token and store it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| error_type | No | ||
| expires_at | No | ||
| account_key | No | ||
| has_refresh_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/network profile is covered. The description adds real value with 'store it', disclosing a persistent side effect, but says nothing about code expiry, failure modes, or what happens to an existing stored token.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and its key side effect. Nothing extraneous.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adequately frames the flow (callback code in, stored token out), though it could name the alternative sibling to round out the picture.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description carries the burden. It compensates by explaining that `code` comes from the callback, giving the agent the origin and expected value of the parameter, though it omits format details.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: exchange an OAuth code for an access token and store it. It is clear and action-specific, but does not differentiate itself from the close sibling alibaba_complete_authorization_from_url, which an agent would need to choose between.
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 phrase 'from the callback' implies the usage context (after the OAuth redirect returns a code), which is useful implied guidance. However it never states when to prefer this over alibaba_complete_authorization_from_url or what prerequisites exist, leaving the alternative-route decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.