environ-mcp

绑定 environ 账号

bind_user

Authenticate with your Environ username and password to bind your account for station data access; use it on first access or when the token expires.

Instructions

用 environ 系统的用户名和密码完成应用绑定，绑定后才能查询站点数据。首次使用或提示 token 失效时必须先调用一次。

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": {
      "username": "<username>",
      "password": "<password>"
    },
    "name": "bind_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`password`	Yes	environ 密码
`username`	Yes	environ 用户名（也可用手机号或邮箱）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.5Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully notes the token-expiry lifecycle and that binding gates all station queries, but says nothing about failed authentication, whether credentials are persisted, or what happens to a prior binding. For a credential-handling operation with zero annotation coverage, that leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

Three short clauses with zero waste, ordered purpose → consequence → precondition, so the agent gets the action and the trigger immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does and when to invoke it. It still omits error behavior and the relationship to check_bind/unbind_user, which matter for a stateful authentication tool.

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 already documents that username may be a phone number or email, so the description's mention of username/password adds no meaning beyond it. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: bind the application using environ username/password, and notes the payoff (station data becomes queryable). It does not explicitly name the sibling check_bind or unbind_user, so sibling differentiation is only implicit, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions: call it on first use, or whenever a token-invalid message appears. This clearly tells the agent when this tool is required rather than optional. It never mentions check_bind as the tool for verifying existing state, which is the one obvious alternative left to inference.

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

Deploy Server