Starts a browser sign-in for a selected service, returns a job with URL and code, and lets you poll job_status until the user approves and running is false.
Start a browser login. Returns a job with the URL and code; the user signs in and approves. Poll job_status until running is false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes | ||
| openBrowser | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / openBrowser / descriptionRemoved value: -"Open the login page in the default browser."Input schema / properties / service / descriptionRemoved value: -"Which account to log in to."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given the minimal annotations, the description provides crucial behavioral context by explaining that the tool is asynchronous, returning a 'job' instead of an immediate success/failure, and mandating the use of `job_status` for completion tracking. This reduces ambiguity for the agent.
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 brief and highly efficient, using two sentences to cover the execution flow and the subsequent required actions without any fluff.
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?
The description provides a complete narrative of the tool's operation. It covers the initiation phase (call), the intermediate state (job return), and the final action required by the agent (polling the job status).
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides little help regarding the meaning of the specific input parameters like `service` or `openBrowser`. It describes the workflow but does not semantically elaborate on the required inputs.
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 tool name and description clearly identify the action as starting a browser login. It distinguishes this function from other automation tools in the set, such as package installation or repository creation.
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 explains the necessary operational sequence: initiate login, wait for URL/code return, perform manual steps (sign in and approve), and then follow up by polling `job_status`. This guides the agent through a complex, multi-step process.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.