login_tomatoOpens a real browser window for QR/captcha login to the Fanqie Novel author backend, then polls login status and saves cookies without handling account passwords.
打开真实浏览器窗口，你在窗口里扫码/过验证码完成登录，服务只轮询登录态并保存 cookies。全程不接触账号密码。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout_seconds | No | 等待登录的超时秒数，默认 300 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals the human-in-the-loop requirement (user must interact in a window), the polling-and-cookie-persistence behavior, and the absence of credential handling. It omits failure/timeout behavior and whether it overwrites existing cookies, which matters for a login that writes auth state.
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 tightly packed sentence that front-loads the key mechanical fact (a real browser window opens) and the interaction model. No filler; every clause (scan/captcha, polling, cookie saving, no passwords) carries distinct information.
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 one-parameter login tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential mechanics an agent must know before invoking it. What remains missing is the post-call outcome (success/timeout handling) and the interaction with existing cookies, but these are minor for this tool's complexity.
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 parameter timeout_seconds is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the timeout parameter or its default, but the schema already does the work.
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 (login) and resource (Tomato author backend) and uniquely characterizes the semi-automatic mechanism (opens a real browser, user scans QR/passes captcha, service polls and saves cookies). It is unambiguous, but it never names its closest sibling set_tomato_cookies, leaving the boundary between the two login paths implicit.
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 implies the usage context (a browser-driven login flow) and clarifies that no account password is involved, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to set_tomato_cookies. The agent must infer that this is the path to take when cookies are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.