mk_login_startStarts a local browser session for manual icourse163.org login, then captures all cookies and the browser user agent for later course workflows. Returns immediately; poll login status separately.
拉起本机 Chrome/Edge 打开登录页,由用户手动登录 icourse163.org(课程平台)。本调用立即返回;成功后自动抓取全部 cookie(含 HttpOnly)和该浏览器的 UA 存盘。用 mk_login_status 轮询结果。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| termId | No | 课程页 tid;提供后以鉴权接口实测 code:0 作为登录成功判据(强烈建议) | |
| timeoutSeconds | No | 后台轮询登录的最长时间 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the async/non-blocking contract, that a human must complete the login in a local browser, that HttpOnly cookies and UA are persisted, and that polling is bounded by the timeout. It omits prerequisites such as needing a desktop GUI browser and whether existing saved credentials are overwritten.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: what happens, what the side effect is, and how to retrieve the outcome. The immediate-return caveat is front-loaded before the side-effect detail.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description explains that the call returns immediately and that the result must be fetched via mk_login_status, which is the key information an agent needs. It could go slightly further by stating what the immediate return value contains.
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 100%, so both termId (the success-criterion assertion) and timeoutSeconds are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about how termId is used or how timeoutSeconds relates to the immediate-return contract, so baseline 3 applies.
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 action (launch local Chrome/Edge to the icourse163.org login page for manual user login) and the concrete side effect (capture all cookies including HttpOnly plus the browser UA to disk). It is clearly distinguishable from the polling siblings, naming mk_login_status directly.
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?
Explicitly says the call returns immediately and that mk_login_status is the way to poll for the result, which routes the agent to the right sibling. It does not cover the alternative case (e.g., checking an existing session with mk_check_login/mk_verify before starting a new login) or what happens if a login is already in progress.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.