Verifies an email confirmation code and stores encrypted login credentials using DPAPI, enabling authenticated setlog access after email verification.
本人から受け取ったメール確認コードを検証し、ログイン情報をDPAPIで暗号化して保存する。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, is open-world, and is non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: it persists login information and encrypts it with DPAPI, which is exactly the type of side effect an agent needs to know about. It does not cover invalid-code behavior or whether retries are safe.
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 a single compact sentence with no wasted wording. It front-loads the verification action and then states the persistence side effect.
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 a one-parameter login verification tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose and persistence adequately. However, it omits flow prerequisites such as whether start_email_login must be called first, and it says nothing about invalid or expired code handling.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'code' is an email confirmation code received from the user, but does not specify format, length, expiration, or case sensitivity.
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 uses a specific verb (verify) and resource (email login code), and also states the post-verification side effect of saving login information. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling start_email_login, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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?
It implies this is the next step after receiving an email confirmation code, but it never states when to use this tool versus start_email_login or other login-related siblings. There are no prerequisites or exclusion conditions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.