Start the Box app authorization process to connect AI assistants to cloud content storage. Use it before file, folder, search, or collaboration operations require Box access.
Authorize the Box application. Start the Box app authorization process
return: str: Message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions starting an authorization process and returning a message, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this initiates an OAuth flow requiring user interaction, potential side effects (e.g., setting tokens), error conditions, or rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't adequately disclose how the tool behaves in practice.
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 brief with three lines, but it's not optimally structured: it repeats the purpose ('Authorize the Box application' and 'Start the Box app authorization process') and includes a vague return statement. It could be more front-loaded and eliminate redundancy, though it avoids excessive verbosity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (authorization is a critical, state-changing operation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the authorization mechanism, what the return message signifies, or how this integrates with other tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand its role in the broader context.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description correctly doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters, though it could note the lack of inputs more explicitly.
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 the tool's purpose as 'Authorize the Box application' and 'Start the Box app authorization process', which provides a clear verb ('authorize') and resource ('Box application'). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings, as no other tools in the list appear to handle authorization, but the description is somewhat vague about what authorization entails (e.g., OAuth flow, user consent).
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to run this before other Box tools), exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.