Poll the OAuth device endpoint to retrieve an access token, completing the device authorization flow for Trakt API access.
Poll for the access_token.
POST /oauth/device/token
Args: body: Request payload. Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is lighter. 'Poll' usefully implies repeated safe calls, but the description does not disclose behavior on pending or expired codes, required authentication, or rate-limit implications.
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-loads the essential action ('Poll for the access_token') before the endpoint and parameter guidance. It omits important context, but it is not verbose or padded.
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?
The description fails to explain the OAuth device flow ordering, such as obtaining a device code first and then polling with that code. The body requirements are left entirely to the schema, and while an output schema exists, the critical call semantics are not conveyed.
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 0% and the single body parameter is an unconstrained object with additionalProperties true. The description merely labels it as 'Request payload' and directs users to the schema, so it does not communicate what fields are actually needed, such as device_code or grant_type.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Poll for the access_token.' and identifies the exact endpoint POST /oauth/device/token. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling OAuth token tools, but the core action is distinct and unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus create_oauth_device_code or create_oauth_token. The only usage instruction is a generic pointer to read the /schema endpoint, with no mention of the device-flow prerequisite or that this should be called repeatedly after obtaining a device code.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.