Store a TOTP configuration from an otpauth:// URI to keep the secret in an encrypted vault and resolve it at runtime without exposing it in LLM transcripts.
Store a TOTP configuration from an otpauth:// URI (from QR code scan or manual entry).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | Yes | otpauth:// URI for the TOTP secret | |
| name | Yes | A name to identify this TOTP config |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only says "Store." It does not state whether an existing config with the same name is overwritten, whether the secret is validated or encrypted at rest, whether auth is required, or what is returned. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and no wasted clauses. Nothing in it could be removed without losing information.
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?
A write tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover collision/overwrite behavior, secret handling, and error conditions, none of which appear. The schema documents the inputs, but the behavioral surface is largely unexplained.
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 100% and both parameters are documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the URI originates from a QR scan or manual entry, which is marginal context beyond the schema's own wording.
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?
Specific verb ("Store") plus resource ("TOTP configuration") and input format ("otpauth:// URI"), which clearly separates it from totp_list, totp_delete and totp_code. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference from the verb.
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 parenthetical "from QR code scan or manual entry" gives a hint about when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as store_secret or totp_code. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.