connect_accountGenerate an OAuth authorization URL for a chosen platform, allowing users to open it in a browser and securely connect their social media account.
Build the OAuth authorize URL for a platform; the user opens it in a browser to connect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | No | ||
| platform | Yes | Platform key (see describe_platform) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the user must open the URL in a browser, signaling this is not a direct connect. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether a pending connection is created server-side), URL expiration, or return value.
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?
One tight sentence delivers the core function and the browser hand-off. No wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves gaps: it doesn't state the return format (presumably the URL), how client affects the URL, or whether any server-side record is created. It adequately orients the agent but is not complete enough for confident invocation without further steps.
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 coverage is only 50% (platform has a description, client does not). The description does little to clarify parameters; it only mentions 'platform' generically. It omits the meaning of client (web/mobile) and doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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 ('Build') and resource ('OAuth authorize URL') plus the goal ('to connect'). Distinguishes from sibling account tools (list_accounts, get_account, disconnect_account) by focusing on the authorization initiation step.
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 a use case (initiating account connection) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like list_accounts or refresh_account. It doesn't state prerequisites, such as invoking describe_platform first, though the schema hints at it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.