Skip to main content
Glama

Sign in with GitHub

sign_in
Idempotent

Authenticate with GitHub device flow to raise public read-only API limits from 60 to 5,000 requests an hour; ask the user first, then show the returned code and link.

Instructions

GitHub device-flow sign-in (60 → 5,000 requests an hour, public read-only, no scopes). Ask the user first. Show the returned code and link exactly; CONTRI notices the approval by itself. Call again to check.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sign_in"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rememberNoKeep the sign-in on this computer (default true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing rate-limit behavior (60 → 5,000 requests/hour), scope restrictions (public read-only, no scopes), the user-approval requirement, and the polling pattern ('call again to check'). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs and that a bare readOnly/destructive annotation set cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense, front-loaded with the core identity, and every clause carries information (rate limit, scopes, user ask, code display, polling). The telegraphic style and internal shorthand ('CONTRI') are slightly opaque, keeping it out of the top band.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the full round trip: show the returned code/link, rely on automatic approval detection, and re-call to poll status. That is enough for correct invocation; only minor gaps like error or expiry behavior remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'remember' fully, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description never mentions the remember behavior, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('GitHub device-flow sign-in') plus the operational envelope: rate limit (60 → 5,000 requests an hour), public read-only, no scopes. An agent can tell this is an authentication entry point distinct from sign_out without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives real procedural guidance: 'Ask the user first,' then 'call again to check' after showing the code and link. That is a clear when/how-to-use contract. It stops short of naming when-not to use or pointing to siblings like sign_out, so it falls just below the top band.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.