Baasix MCP Server

baasix_login

Log in users with email and password, selecting JWT or cookie authentication mode and optional tenant ID for multi-tenant support.

Instructions

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "password": "<password>"
    },
    "name": "baasix_login"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	User email address
`authMode`	No	Authentication mode	jwt
`password`	Yes	User password
`tenant_Id`	No	Tenant ID for multi-tenant mode

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.7Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'login user' and gives no indication of whether a token, cookie, or session is returned, how authMode affects behavior, or what errors occur. This is a significant gap for an authentication operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise, though perhaps too sparse to fully support a 4-parameter authentication tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set of auth-related tools, the description is not complete enough. It omits return behavior, session semantics, authMode differences, tenant handling, and any guidance on error or success outcomes.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description restates that email and password are used but adds no additional meaning about authMode, tenant_Id, defaults, or formatting.

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 clearly states the operation: 'Login user with email and password'. This is a specific verb and resource, and the credential method distinguishes it from auth siblings like register_user, send_magic_link, and logout.

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?

The description implies this tool is for authenticating an existing user with email and password, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives such as send_magic_link, register_user, or refresh_auth. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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

Deploy Server