yimu-mcp

login_email

login_email

Authenticate a Yimu bookkeeping account with email and password, encrypt credentials before submission, and return login status plus user details; use configured environment variables when credentials are omitted.

Instructions

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；仅返回登录状态与用户对象。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）。

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": "login_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	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）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: discloses the AES-128-ECB encryption scheme, the no-auth requirement, env-var fallback with error behavior, and that the response is limited to login status plus user object. It omits session/token lifetime and whether credentials are persisted server-side.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are dense with relevant detail, but the paragraph crams several distinct concerns (encryption, return shape, env fallback, alternative) into one block rather than structuring them.

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 2-optional-param login tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: auth exemption, return shape, and credential fallback. What an agent should do after a successful login (e.g., how subsequent calls authenticate) is left implicit.

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 both parameters already document the env-var fallback, so the description adds little beyond restating that omission triggers YIMU_EMAIL/YIMU_PASSWORD and an error if unset. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (email/password login) and immediately adds scope: no auth required, encrypted submission, returns only login status and user object. It also distinguishes itself from the QR-login siblings by naming them as the preferred alternative.

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?

Explicitly recommends using QR login (more secure) instead, and explains the fallback path when email/password are omitted (env vars, error if unconfigured). It lacks an explicit statement of when email login is actually appropriate (e.g., headless/automated environments), but the routing guidance is clear.

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