Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@ola/buzz-mcp

@ola/buzz-mcp

Official
by ola-krutrim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

buzz_login

Idempotent

Signs you in as yourself for "post as me" in GUI/desktop MCP clients without a terminal. The first call returns a browser approval URL; call again to confirm the connection.

Instructions

Sign in as YOURSELF for "post as me" (Ekam wire-sign OAuth) WITHOUT a terminal — for GUI/desktop (Claude Desktop/MCPB) clients that can't run the buzz-mcp-login CLI. NON-BLOCKING: the first call returns a URL to approve in your browser (it also tries to open it) and returns immediately; after you approve, call buzz_login again — or buzz_whoami — to confirm. Idempotent: if you're already connected it says so. Optional client_id (else env BUZZ_EKAM_CLIENT_ID).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "buzz_login"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_idNoEkam OAuth client id (from DCR); falls back to env BUZZ_EKAM_CLIENT_ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.36
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / client_id / maxLength
      Added value: +256
  2. Addedv0.2.7

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, but the description adds the genuinely non-obvious behavior: the call is non-blocking, returns a browser URL immediately, and may auto-open the browser, requiring a second call to complete verification. It does not say how long the pending URL stays valid, which is the main remaining gap for an auth flow.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the outcome and the target client class, then the call sequence, then the parameter fallback. Dense with parenthetical jargon ('Ekam wire-sign OAuth') and inline caps, but nearly every clause carries operational meaning an agent needs.

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 zero-required-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the two-step flow, the confirmation path via buzz_whoami, and the already-connected case. Missing only practical details such as URL expiry or what the returned payload looks like before approval.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already explains that client_id falls back to env BUZZ_EKAM_CLIENT_ID, so the description merely repeats it. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra guidance (e.g. when an agent would supply client_id rather than relying on env) is added.

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?

States a specific verb and outcome (sign in as yourself to enable 'post as me' via Ekam wire-sign OAuth) and immediately distinguishes itself from the buzz-mcp-login CLI path, naming the client class (GUI/desktop, MCPB) it exists for. An agent can tell it apart from buzz_whoami and the rest of the buzz_* siblings without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit about when to use it (GUI/desktop clients that can't run the CLI) and the exact multi-call sequence: call once to get a URL, have the user approve in the browser, then call again or use buzz_whoami to confirm. It also names the idempotent case where no action is needed, so the agent knows what to do on repeat invocation.

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