Skip to main content
Glama
kychee-com

run402-mcp

by kychee-com
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

request_magic_link

Send a passwordless login email via magic link to authenticate a project user. Automatically creates the user upon first verification.

Instructions

Send a passwordless login email (magic link) to a project user. Auto-creates the user on first verification. Rate limited per email (5/hr) and per project (by tier).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesEmail address to authenticate
intentNoMagic-link intent. invite requires the service key and creates trusted invite state.
deliveryNoEmail credential mode. Defaults to link.
project_idYesThe project ID
client_stateNoOptional opaque app state preserved through token verification
redirect_urlNoAllowed redirect URL. Required for link/both; optional for code.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv4.13.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / delivery
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Email credential mode. Defaults to link.",
+  "enum": [
+    "link",
+    "code",
+    "both"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / description
      Previous value: -"Email address to send the magic link to"New value: +"Email address to authenticate"
    • changedInput schema / properties / redirect_url / description
      Previous value: -"URL to redirect to after clicking the magic link. Must be an allowed origin for this project (localhost, claimed subdomain, or custom domain)."New value: +"Allowed redirect URL. Required for link/both; optional for code."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "project_id",
-  "email",
-  "redirect_url"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "email"
+]
  2. First observedv3.6.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 discloses two important behaviors: auto-creation of user on first verification and rate limits. However, it omits other aspects like idempotency, error scenarios, and whether the tool is read-only or mutating. The description adds value but is not comprehensive.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences totaling 28 words. Every sentence delivers critical information (action, auto-creation, rate limits) without filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful constraints.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the high-level flow and constraints but does not cover error handling, return values, or detailed behavior for each parameter. It is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves gaps for advanced usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The tool description does not add new parameter-specific information beyond stating the overall behavior (auto-creation, rate limits). Since the schema is complete, the description's contribution to parameter semantics is minimal, landing at the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('passwordless login email (magic link)'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'verify_magic_link' and 'create_auth_user'. It also states the auto-creation behavior, further clarifying the tool's unique role.

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?

The description mentions rate limits (5/hr per email, per project by tier), providing useful guidance on when the tool can be used. It also implies the primary use case (sending a magic link for login) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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