Import login credentials for Goofish automation by auto-detecting sessions from local browsers like Chrome, Edge, Brave, Safari, or Firefox, or by scanning a QR code.
导入登录态（默认从本机浏览器 auto-detect；支持 Chrome/Edge/Brave/Safari/Firefox 等）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| qr | No | ||
| raw | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| browser | No | auto | |
| qr_timeout | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Output schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"auth_loginOutput"New value: +"auth_loginDictOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the default source (local browser auto-detect) and browser support, but says nothing about the credential-import being a sensitive/state-changing operation, whether it overwrites an existing session, what authentication or permissions are needed, or that a QR-code flow exists (implied only by the schema).
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical qualifier — no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is efficient, though for a five-parameter credential tool it borders on under-specification.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with zero annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a security-sensitive login-import operation, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke this correctly or safely.
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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies browser (default auto-detect plus supported values) and leaves qr, raw, source, and qr_timeout entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: importing a login state (登录态), with the default acquisition path (auto-detect from the local browser). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from auth_status or auth_reset_guard, which are the obvious adjacent siblings an agent must choose between.
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 when it runs by default (auto-detect from the local browser) and enumerates supported browsers, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs auth_status/auth_reset_guard guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of what happens if an existing session is already present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.