Set authentication type and credentials for a service. Define bearer, basic, API key, or OAuth2 parameters to control API access.
Configure authentication for a service
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth_type | Yes | Authentication type | |
| service_id | Yes | Service ID | |
| auth_config | Yes | Auth configuration (token, username/password, etc.) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Configure authentication', which implies a mutation but does not state whether existing auth is overwritten, whether the change is reversible, whether it takes effect immediately, or whether it requires special permissions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the effect of the operation, the meaning of auth_config per auth_type, or any side effects. The schema covers parameter names but not the behavioral context an agent needs to call this correctly.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting. The auth_config nested object is only vaguely described as 'Auth configuration (token, username/password, etc.)', and the description does not clarify how it maps to each auth_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 ('Configure authentication for a service'), so an agent can tell it is a write operation on service auth. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like update_service or create_service, and the title is null, so the description carries the entire burden of identifying what this tool is for.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes update_service and create_service, which could plausibly also touch service configuration, but the description does not mention them or any conditions for choosing this tool. An agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.