Campus Virtual MCP

login

Authenticates to the UTN FRSF campus virtual using local .env credentials, maintains the session, and retries rate-limited access attempts.

Instructions

Inicia sesión en UTN FRSF con las credenciales locales de .env.

Conserva la sesión durante la ejecución del servidor. Reintenta TooManyRequests de forma acotada, volviendo a la página de acceso.

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": "login"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`status`	No	authenticated
`message`	Yes
`attempts`	Yes
`already_authenticated`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutating nature is known; the description adds real context beyond them: credentials come from .env, the session persists for the server's lifetime, and TooManyRequests is retried in a bounded way with a return to the login page. It does not say what happens on failed authentication or whether repeated calls replace 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded and the two behavioral facts (session persistence, retry policy) following. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is failure behavior on bad credentials and interaction with an already-active session, which matters for a non-idempotent auth call.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is baseline 4. The description earns credit by explaining why the surface is empty — credentials are read from the local .env file — so an agent will not attempt to pass credentials.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: 'Inicia sesión en UTN FRSF', with the credential source stated. No sibling is named, but none of the listed siblings (list_courses, upload_files, etc.) overlaps with authentication, so the purpose is unambiguous without explicit differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Conserva la sesión durante la ejecución del servidor' implies this must be called before authenticated operations, but the implication is never made explicit. There is no statement of prerequisites, of when NOT to call it, or of what to do if a session already exists.

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

Deploy Server