Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pocketbase-mcp

pocketbase-mcp

by nestebe
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Confirm email verification

confirm_verification

Confirm a user's email verification by submitting the verification token from the email, finalizing the authentication process.

Instructions

Confirm a user's email verification using the token from the verification email.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "confirm_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesVerification token.
collectionNoAuth collection (default 'users').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states the core action but does not disclose token expiration/single-use behavior, error handling, or what happens on invalid tokens. Basic transparency is present, but richer detail is absent.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and includes the essential usage context in a compact form.

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?

This is a simple tool with a complete schema, so the description is minimally viable. However, without annotations or an output schema, an agent still has to guess about success/failure behavior and token validity constraints.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value by noting the token comes from the verification email, but it does not clarify the 'collection' parameter's behavior or default.

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 states a specific verb ('Confirm') and resource ('a user's email verification'), and clarifies the token comes from the verification email. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like confirm_password_reset or confirm_email_change.

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 context is clear: this tool is used when a user has a token from a verification email. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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