Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
yoto-mcp-server

yoto-mcp-server

by bperkinspdx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

yoto-auth

Authenticate with Yoto API using device authorization flow to enable terminal-based audio uploads and MYO card creation.

Instructions

Authenticate with Yoto API using device authorization flow

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": "yoto-auth"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the 'device authorization flow' but does not explain its multi-step nature, user interaction requirements, or side effects (e.g., storing tokens). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely mutates state.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Authenticate' and provides the essential resource and flow. It is concise with no wasted words, making it easy to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description could have compensated by explaining what happens after successful authentication (e.g., token storage) or noting that it should be run before other Yoto tools. It fails to do so, leaving the context incomplete for an agent that needs to orchestrate multiple steps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter details, but none are needed. The description provides no misleading or ambiguous parameter information.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Authenticate' and the resource 'Yoto API', and specifies the method ('device authorization flow'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yoto-upload-audio and yoto-list-cards, which perform content operations, and yoto-check-auth, which likely only checks authentication status.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies that authentication is required for using other Yoto API tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yoto-check-auth. There is no guidance on prerequisites, order of operations, or conditions under which authentication should be renewed.

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