Skip to main content
Glama
codeofaxel

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

kiln_spend_caps_confirm_order_approval

Confirm a one-order spend approval by submitting the person's TOTP code and challenge ID, then receive a single-use token to place that order.

Instructions

Confirm a one-order approval with the person's code (step 2 of 2).

        On success returns an ``approval_token``: pass it to the order
        tool when placing that order again.  It works once, for that
        order and amount, and expires within minutes.

        Args:
            challenge_id: From ``kiln_spend_caps_request_order_approval``.
            totp_code: The six-digit code the PERSON reads from their own
                authenticator app.  Never produce or guess it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totp_codeYes
challenge_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden well: it discloses the single-use token, its binding to a specific order and amount, and its minutes-long expiry. It also warns the agent never to produce or guess the TOTP code, which is critical safety behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and step number, then the return contract and token lifetime, then the parameter meanings. Every sentence adds information relevant to correct invocation; no filler.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description adds the non-obvious semantics of the returned token (single use, scoped, short-lived) and the security constraint on the code. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: challenge_id is traced to the originating request tool, and totp_code is defined as the six-digit code the person reads from their own authenticator, with an explicit prohibition on generating it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Confirm a one-order approval with the person's code') and positions itself as 'step 2 of 2', naming the sibling tool that produces the challenge. An agent can distinguish it from kiln_spend_caps_request_order_approval 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Clearly states the sequencing (step 2 of 2), where the challenge_id comes from, and what to do with the returned token ('pass it to the order tool when placing that order again'). It does not explicitly say when not to call it, but the workflow context is unambiguous.

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