Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ryft MCP

Ryft MCP

by bkawk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

accountLinks.generateTemporary

Generate temporary account links for hosted sub-accounts to enable secure redirects to specified URLs.

Instructions

Generate a temporary Ryft account link for a hosted sub-account.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "accountId": "<accountId>",
      "redirectUrl": "<redirectUrl>"
    },
    "name": "accountLinks.generateTemporary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountIdYes
redirectUrlYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds context by specifying the link is 'temporary' (time-bounded) and for a 'hosted sub-account' (specific account type), but lacks critical behavioral details like expiration duration, security implications, or idempotency.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single-sentence structure is efficient and front-loaded with the action, but the brevity is inappropriate given the complexity (zero schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), resulting in underspecification.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to document parameters, explain the temporary link's lifecycle, or describe the return value, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It provides implicit context for 'accountId' via 'hosted sub-account', but offers no explanation for 'redirectUrl' semantics, acceptable formats, or examples, leaving significant gaps.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Generate'), resource ('Ryft account link'), and scope ('temporary', 'hosted sub-account'), distinguishing it from generic account operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'accounts.createAuthorizationLink'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., accounts.createAuthorizationLink) or prerequisites for invocation. The description only states what the tool does, not when to select it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools