Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

kiln_signin_poll

Destructive

Poll a pending sign-in using the returned device code to check whether authentication is pending, succeeded, denied, or expired, then continue only after completion.

Instructions

Check whether a sign-in started by kiln_signin is done.

        Call this repeatedly (every ``interval`` seconds) with the
        ``device_code`` that ``kiln_signin`` returned.  Each call is a
        single HTTP round-trip (it does NOT block), so the agent stays
        responsive and the user sees progress.

        Returns ``{"status": "pending" | "success" | "denied" |
        "expired", ...}``.

        * ``pending`` — user hasn't finished in the browser yet;
          wait ``interval`` seconds and call again.
        * ``success`` — tokens have been written to
          ``~/.kiln/auth_tokens.json`` (mode 0600); the response
          also echoes ``email`` and ``tier``.  Every other Kiln tool
          picks up the new session automatically.
        * ``denied`` — user cancelled in the browser.
        * ``expired`` — the device_code timed out (15 min window);
          call ``kiln_signin`` again for a fresh code.

        Free tier — no license key required.
        :param device_code: The ``device_code`` that ``kiln_signin``
            returned for this sign-in.

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": {
      "device_code": "<device_code>"
    },
    "name": "kiln_signin_poll"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
device_codeYesThe ``device_code`` that ``kiln_signin`` returned for this sign-in.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / device_code / description
      Added value: +"The ``device_code`` that ``kiln_signin`` returned for this sign-in."
  2. Addedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses that each call is a single non-blocking HTTP round-trip, that success writes tokens to ~/.kiln/auth_tokens.json with mode 0600, and that the device_code expires after a 15-minute window. The destructiveHint=true annotation is not contradicted: the description makes clear a real side effect (credential persistence) can occur, which is consistent with a non-readOnly classification.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, then a clear status bullet list where each bullet earns its place. Minor waste remains: the leftover `:param device_code:` docstring fragment duplicates the schema, and the 'Free tier — no license key required' line is tangential to polling.

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 single-parameter polling tool with an output schema, every decision an agent must make is covered: cadence, terminal states, recovery on expiry, and the side effect of success. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema text for `device_code` is essentially identical to the description's `:param` line, so no new parameter-level meaning is added. The valuable context (where the code comes from, that it is single-sign-in scoped) is usage guidance rather than parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource — checking whether a sign-in started by kiln_signin has completed — and names the sibling that starts it, so an agent can route between kiln_signin and kiln_signin_poll without opening either schema.

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 gives explicit operating instructions: call repeatedly every `interval` seconds with the `device_code` from kiln_signin, and it maps each outcome to an action (pending → wait and re-poll, expired → restart with kiln_signin). It also states what not to expect (no blocking) and how the result propagates to other Kiln tools.

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