Fetch a profile's confirmation codes from email or text messages, enabling AI agents to complete logins and challenges.
The profile's confirmation codes, by mail or by text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval of confirmation codes but does not disclose authentication needs, whether messages are marked read, return format, or rate limits. Only a hint of content channels is added.
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 a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is structurally a noun phrase rather than a clear statement, which reduces clarity. It is concise but under-specified.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and when to use it. It only hints at content (confirmation codes via mail or text) and omits return format, scope, and usage context.
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?
Zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage give a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none; the schema fully defines the empty input.
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 description names the resource (confirmation codes) and delivery channels (mail or text), which hints at content, but it omits a clear verb and does not say whether it lists, reads, or fetches. Sibling `inbox_open_link` suggests an inbox family, yet no differentiation is provided. Vague purpose.
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?
No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The agent must infer that this is the tool for retrieving confirmation codes, with no stated conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.