Authenticate with a BetaDrop API token to validate credentials and store them in the shared CLI config for API access.
Configure API authentication with a BetaDrop token. Validates the token against the server and saves credentials to the shared CLI config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | BetaDrop API token (e.g. bd_live_...) | |
| apiUrl | No | Optional BetaDrop API base URL override. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses two behavioral facts: it validates the token against the server (network call) and persists credentials to shared CLI config (side effect). It doesn't discuss overwriting existing credentials, but it is sufficient for safety awareness.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose; no filler or repetition of schema/field names.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no annotations, it covers what the tool does, validation, and persistence. With no output schema, it doesn't state return/success behavior, but this is a minor gap for a login operation.
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 covers 100% of parameters, including token example and apiUrl as optional override. The description adds only that the token is validated, not deeper syntax or behavior, so baseline 3 applies.
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 action ('Configure API authentication') and resource ('BetaDrop token'), then adds validation and credential persistence, which separates it from sibling token-management or status tools.
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 context is clear: call this when setting up/updating CLI authentication with a BetaDrop token. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but its purpose and sibling set make selection unmissable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.