Logs into EduPage through the portal, automatically detecting the school, and optionally tags the session with a subdomain for multi-school tools to reference.
Log in to Edupage via the portal (auto-detect school). Optionally tag the
resulting session with subdomain so multi-school tools can reference it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| password | No | ||
| username | No | ||
| subdomain | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating a session and optional subdomain tagging, but does not disclose credential requirements, two-factor authentication behavior, session replacement, error handling, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure for an authentication tool.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and key differentiator, and the second sentence explains the only notable optional parameter. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
For an authentication tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, this description is incomplete. It doesn't state whether credentials are required, what happens on success or failure, whether two-factor is involved, or how the resulting session is returned or made available to other tools.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context only for subdomain, explaining it is a session tag for multi-school tools. It provides no meaning for username or password, leaving those parameters semantically undefined beyond their names and string types.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Log in to Edupage') and the resource ('via the portal'), with the distinguishing feature 'auto-detect school.' It also explains the optional subdomain tagging purpose. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling login tools like login or login_all, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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 when login_auto is appropriate—when school auto-detection is desired—but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus login, login_all, or login_from_session. No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.