Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pavo 官网 MCP

Pavo 官网 MCP

by congliu1851-ui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

导入官网Bearer认证

pavo_auth_import_authorization

Imports a user-provided Bearer authorization token, verifies it through the official read-only project API, and stores it in a local 0600 session file without echoing the credential.

Instructions

仅接收用户明确提供的Authorization: Bearer值，通过官网只读项目接口核验后保存在本机0600会话文件；不回显凭证。禁止把凭证写到源码、配置示例或日志。

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": {
      "authorization": "<authorization>"
    },
    "name": "pavo_auth_import_authorization"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authorizationYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare write behavior (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and open-world access, and the description is consistent: it discloses the remote read-only verification call, the local 0600 file destination, and the no-echo rule for the credential. It omits behavior beyond that, such as whether an existing session file is overwritten or what happens when verification fails, so it does not fully cover the mutation path.

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?

Three dense sentences with the accepted input stated first, followed by the verification and storage behavior, then the security prohibitions. Every clause contributes, though the final prohibition sentence is a policy directive rather than tool mechanics and could be trimmed without losing call-relevant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the description covers acceptance criteria, the verification step, storage location/permissions, and secrecy guarantees. The remaining gaps, error behavior and overwrite semantics, are minor for a single-parameter tool.

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 0% for the single required 'authorization' parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It does say the value is an 'Authorization: Bearer' value and must come from the user, but it never resolves whether the literal 'Bearer ' prefix belongs in the string or just the raw token, which is the one detail an agent will get wrong.

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 names a specific action on a specific resource: it takes an Authorization: Bearer value, verifies it against the official site's read-only project API, and persists it to a local 0600 session file. That is far more than a restatement of the name, and none of the sibling tools (project, node, task, or script operations) perform credential import, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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?

It establishes a clear precondition: the value must be one the user explicitly supplied, so the agent knows not to invent or infer a token. There is no explicit statement of when not to call it, nor of what to do if a credential already exists, but no sibling comes close enough to require routing guidance.

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