Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codesign-mcp

codesign-mcp

by ccpopy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

CoDesign Login

codesign_login
Idempotent

Opens a Chromium browser window to codesign.qq.com for QR code login authentication; returns immediately if already logged in, reusing the persisted session.

Instructions

Open a visible Chromium window pointed at codesign.qq.com so the user can scan-login. If already logged in, returns immediately without opening a window. The session is persisted under profileDir and reused by subsequent tools.

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": "codesign_login"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
waitMsNoMax wait time for the user to finish scanning. Defaults to 10 min.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.9

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, not destructive, openWorld), the description discloses that a visible window is opened, the session is persisted under profileDir, and that it returns immediately if already logged in. This adds valuable behavioral context not captured by annotations alone.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding essential information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundancy or trivial details.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's operation well. It could mention the return behavior (e.g., success/failure indication) but this is not critical. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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 schema covers the `waitMs` parameter fully (100% coverage), but the description adds the default value (10 min) which is not in the schema. This extra detail enhances understanding of the parameter's behavior.

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 tool's purpose: opening a visible Chromium window for scanning login on codesign.qq.com. It uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('Chromium window'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like codesign_logout and codesign_status.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: it returns immediately if already logged in, indicating no action needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as suggesting codesign_status to check login state first.

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