Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
NinjaOne MCP

NinjaOne MCP

by cyberkoder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

exchange_code

Exchange a NinjaOne authorization code for a refresh token to enable persistent API access without re-authentication.

Instructions

Exchange a NinjaOne authorization code for a refresh token. Paste the code from the redirect URL after using get_auth_url. Save the returned refresh_token as NINJA_REFRESH_TOKEN in your MCP client config.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "exchange_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe authorization code from the redirect URL query parameter 'code'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions the returned refresh_token but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate for a simple exchange but lacks completeness.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and instructions are direct. Ideal conciseness for this tool.

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?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and a simple OAuth flow, the description is complete. It explains the prerequisite (get_auth_url) and post-action (save token). No gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a description of 'code'. The description adds valuable context: 'Paste the code from the redirect URL after using get_auth_url', which helps the agent understand where to obtain the parameter value.

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 verb 'Exchange' and resource 'authorization code for a refresh token' clearly define the action. It distinguishes from sibling tool get_auth_url by indicating it is used after that step.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('after using get_auth_url') and what to do with the result ('Save the returned refresh_token...'). No explicit when-not, but usage context is clear.

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