login_emailAuthenticate to Yimu using email and password to obtain a user object and JWT. Password is encrypted, and credentials can be omitted to use YIMU_EMAIL/YIMU_PASSWORD environment variables.
邮箱密码登录（免鉴权）。密码按网页端加密方案（AES-128-ECB）加密后提交；返回用户对象与 JWT。不传 email/password 时使用环境变量 YIMU_EMAIL/YIMU_PASSWORD（未配置则报错）。请优先使用扫码登录（更安全）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | 一木记账账号邮箱；缺省用环境变量 YIMU_EMAIL | ||
| password | No | 账号密码；缺省用环境变量 YIMU_PASSWORD（仅本次调用，不落盘） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the AES-128-ECB encryption scheme, the return of a user object and JWT, the env-var fallback, and the '未配置则报错' failure mode. It could additionally clarify session-related side effects, but the core behavior is well covered.
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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, encryption, return value, default behavior, error case, and security guidance are all conveyed in four short sentences. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given zero required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough operational detail for a correct invocation: encryption, defaults, output, and error handling. It is slightly incomplete in not describing the returned user-object structure or any authentication-session side effects, but these are not necessary to call the tool.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds tool-level meaning by explaining the password encryption method and the environment variable fallback behavior, providing context beyond the individual parameter descriptions.
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 identifies the operation as '邮箱密码登录' (email/password login) and specifies its output: '返回用户对象与 JWT'. It also distinguishes this tool from QR-code login siblings by explicitly presenting it as the email/password login path.
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 advises '请优先使用扫码登录（更安全）', pointing the agent to the QR alternative and indicating a preference. It also explains the env-var fallback and error behavior, but it does not fully state the conditional context in which email/password login should be chosen over QR.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.