Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PingCode MCP

PingCode MCP

by frontendRicky
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

PingCode User Login (OAuth)

pingcode_auth_login

Authenticate user via browser authorization: returns URL to login and obtain code, then exchanges code for token saved locally.

Instructions

用户态浏览器授权登录。不传 code：返回授权 URL 与引导，请去浏览器打开并登录授权，再从回调地址复制 code 回来；传 code：用授权码换取并保存用户令牌（0600 本地文件），返回当前用户。不读取浏览器 cookie/storage，不要把网页登录 token 贴进聊天。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pingcode_auth_login"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNo浏览器授权回调 URL 中的 code 参数；不传则返回授权 URL 与引导。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that the tool does not read browser cookies/storage, saves user token to a local file with 0600 permissions, and explains the two-step flow. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and covers key behaviors.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose first then detailing the two scenarios. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior for both input cases. It could optionally mention the structure of the returned current user object.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'code' parameter. Description adds meaning by explaining the two modes (with/without code) and what the code represents, going beyond the schema description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is for user-space browser authorization login, using specific verb (login) and resource (PingCode user auth). It distinguishes from siblings like pingcode_auth_status and pingcode_auth_logout by focusing on the login 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?

Description explains two usage modes: without code to get authorization URL, with code to complete login. It also warns not to paste web login token. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternatives like auth_status.

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