Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

Kia Access MCP

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

kia_start_login

Destructive

Perform the first step of Kia login MFA bootstrap: send stored credentials, get OTP key and XID, and require explicit user confirmation before proceeding.

Instructions

Step 1 of the ONE-TIME Kia MFA bootstrap (prof/authUser): send the configured credentials and get back the otpKey and xid the next two steps need. Only needed when kia_session_status reports hasSession:false — once the bootstrap is done the stored remember-me token refreshes sessions silently forever. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call makes NO network call and returns a preview plus a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). The gate is real: Kia counts failed logins and eventually enforces reCAPTCHA, which breaks server-side login for this account PERMANENTLY — so a rejection is never retried, and a wrong password must be fixed in the environment rather than guessed at.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals a two-phase confirmation flow, no network call on first invocation in fallback mode, and a severe failure mode: failed logins can trigger reCAPTCHA that permanently breaks server-side login. It explains that rejections are never retried, which is exactly the kind of context annotations alone cannot provide.

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 dense but every sentence carries necessary risk or flow information. It front-loads the purpose and usage condition before explaining the confirmation fallback and consequences, and uses the warning at the end to justify caution without padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition, expected return values (otpKey, xid, preview, confirmToken), the repeat-call protocol, and the high-consequence failure behavior. There is no critical gap an agent would need in order to call this correctly.

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 already describes confirmToken in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by tying the token to the two-step confirmation mode, noting it is ignored when the client supports elicitation, and reinforcing that a repeat call must use the same arguments. This clarifies when and how the parameter should be used.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: Step 1 of the Kia MFA bootstrap, sends configured credentials, and returns otpKey plus xid for the next two steps. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling session/token tools like kia_session_status and kia_send_otp.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states explicitly that the tool is only needed when kia_session_status reports hasSession:false and that the bootstrap happens once, after which the stored remember-me token refreshes sessions silently. The confirmation requirement is also described, eliminating ambiguity about when a second call may occur.

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