Complete the device-flow authorization after the user approved in the browser. Polls the service briefly; if approval hasn't happened yet, just call this tool again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool polls the service briefly and may need multiple calls if approval hasn't occurred. This is good behavioral context, though it could mention retry limits or timeout behavior.
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 two sentences long and contains no filler. Every word adds value, clearly explaining purpose and retry behavior.
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?
Despite no annotations or output schema, the description fully explains the tool's role and behavior for its simplicity (no parameters). It tells an agent when to call, what it does, and how to handle non-approval.
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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to describe.
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 clearly states the tool completes device-flow authorization after user approval in the browser. It specifies the action (complete authorization), resource (device-flow authorization), and distinguishes it from sibling 'authorize' which likely initiates the flow.
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 provides context that this tool should be used after browser approval and that if approval hasn't happened, the tool can be called again. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the polling instruction gives clear usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authorization flow, attestation, verification, anchor checking, certificate lookup and creation, and health status. No overlapping responsibilities.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (attest_hash, check_anchor, etc.), but 'authorize' is verb-only and 'service_status' is noun_noun, causing minor inconsistency.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for an attestation service, covering authorization, attestation, verification, certificate retrieval, anchor checking, and health monitoring.
Core workflow is covered (authorize, attest, verify, certificate), but lacks a tool to list all user attestations or manage sessions, a minor gap.