Authenticate in CvLAC and persist the browser session, so later actions run without signing in again. Use force to authenticate again when the session is invalid.
Authenticate in CvLAC and persist the browser session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | Force re-login even if session is valid |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state without being destructive. The description usefully adds that the session is persisted, but says nothing about where credentials come from, what happens on failed authentication, or whether re-login invalidates an existing session.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the verb, the target system, and the persistence side effect with zero filler.
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?
With a trivial one-parameter schema, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is meaningful for an auth tool: it never explains credential sourcing or failure/lockout behavior, which an agent needs before invoking login.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'force' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself ('Force re-login even if session is valid'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Authenticate in CvLAC') plus the side effect of persisting the browser session. No sibling tool performs authentication, so it is inherently distinct, but the description does not explicitly claim that uniqueness.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites relative to the read_*/update_* siblings. The mention of persisting a session only weakly implies this must precede session-dependent calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.