pocketbase-mcp

Request OTP (one-time password)

request_otp

Send a one-time password to a user's email and receive the otpId needed to complete authentication via OTP in PocketBase.

Instructions

Send a one-time password email to a user and return the otpId needed to complete auth_with_otp (requires SMTP and OTP auth enabled on the collection).

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "request_otp"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	User email address.
`collection`	No	Auth collection (default 'users').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key side effect (sends an email) and the prerequisite configuration, but it does not mention OTP expiration, rate limits, failure modes, or what happens if the email is invalid. This is adequate but not rich.

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 delivers the action, output, and prerequisite without wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is neatly parenthesized.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it explains what happens, what is returned, and what must be enabled. Minor gaps around OTP expiry and error behavior prevent a perfect score, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 both parameters adequately. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Send'), a concrete resource ('one-time password email to a user'), and a clear output ('return the otpId needed to complete auth_with_otp'). It also implies differentiation from the sibling auth_with_otp by framing this as the initiation step rather than the completion 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?

The description clearly indicates that this tool is the prerequisite for auth_with_otp and notes the required configuration ('requires SMTP and OTP auth enabled'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like request_verification or request_password_reset, but the OTP-specific context is reasonably clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server