Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TeamOnly

TeamOnly

by sohelsd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Sign in with a work email

sign_in

Authenticate a TeamOnly user by emailing a 6-digit code to their work address, then verifying the code they provide to complete access.

Instructions

Signs in to TeamOnly on this computer. Call it with "email" first: TeamOnly emails that address a 6-digit code. Ask the person for the code, then call again with "code". If their company is new, the result says so; then use start_trial.

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": "sign_in"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoThe 6-digit code from the email
emailNoWork email address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It discloses the key side effect, that TeamOnly emails a 6-digit code, and explains the two-step interaction and new-company branch, though it does not mention code expiry or failure behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's action and the required first step, followed by the follow-up step and the start_trial branch. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter sign-in tool with no output schema, the description covers the full interaction flow and the new-company fallback. It does not describe what a successful result looks like or how long codes last, which are minor omissions for this complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the schema documents both parameters. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that "email" must be supplied first, that "code" arrives by email, and that the second call uses that code.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it signs the user in to TeamOnly on this computer. It also distinguishes the two-step email/code flow and points to start_trial for new companies, so an agent can tell it apart from the onboarding sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit call sequence: call first with "email", ask the person for the emailed 6-digit code, then call again with "code". It also states when to switch to start_trial when the company is new, which is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools