Validate a library API token to create a new scoped session or attach to an existing one, returning the session token for authenticated access.
Validate a library API token; bootstrap a scoped session or attach the library to an existing one. Returns the session token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_id | No | ||
| user_id | No | ||
| library_name | No | ||
| library_token | Yes | ||
| session_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool validates a token, may create or attach a session, and returns a session token. However, it does not describe failure modes, required permissions, persistence effects, or what 'attach the library to an existing one' changes about the session or library.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, stating the main action first and then the return value. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description needs to compensate by explaining the parameters, side effects, and error behavior. It only covers the high-level session flow)Skip leaving major gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds meaning for library_token and, indirectly, session_token. The parameters repo_id, user_id, and library_name are left completely unexplained, leaving an agent without enough information to populate them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (library API token) and the action (validate, bootstrap a scoped session, or attach to an existing session), and it specifies the returned value. It is specific enough to convey the tool's core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling auth tools like auth_login or auth_add_library.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage context: when a library API token needs to be validated and a session needs to be created or extended. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned even though several sibling auth tools could be confused with this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.