Complete Sella agent authentication. Submit the 6-digit code from the email. Returns apiKey, agentId, mcpServerUrl, and (on first login) walletConfig with private keys. Instruct the user to save walletConfig to ~/.sella-wallet.json immediately. Private keys are shown only once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The same email used in sella_auth_start | ||
| otp_code | Yes | The 6-digit verification code from the email |
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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation (indicating a state-changing operation), the description discloses critical behavior: it returns private keys that are shown only once and instructs the user to save walletConfig immediately. This is significant security-relevant context that helps the agent handle the tool correctly.
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 concise: two sentences that front-load purpose, then explain the return values and the critical security instruction. No wasted words; every sentence carries necessary 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?
The description explicitly lists all return fields (apiKey, agentId, mcpServerUrl, walletConfig) and provides actionable guidance for the one-time private keys. Even without an output schema, an agent has sufficient information to invoke the tool and handle the result properly.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters well-described. The description adds value by explicitly linking the email parameter to sella_auth_start (reinforcing that it must be the same email), which provides context beyond the schema's own text.
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?
Description states a specific action (complete authentication), the resource (Sella agent), and the specific input (6-digit code). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like sella_auth_start (which initiates the flow) and sella_setup_claim (a different setup step).
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 it is the second step after sella_auth_start by mentioning 'the same email used in sella_auth_start' in the schema and the flow implied by 'Complete... authentication.' However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or state when not to use it, which is a minor gap given the multi-step auth context.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the deprecated tools (list_datasets, list_market_apis, search_datasets, try_dataset) overlap with modern replacements (search_catalog, get_listing). Some functional overlap exists between get_activity and charge_list, but descriptions clarify their scopes. Overall, an agent can usually tell tools apart, with a few legacy remnants.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (browse_catalog, business_start, charge_create, etc.). Even the deprecated tools adhere to the same style. There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs like 'process' or 'run'. The naming is highly predictable.
At 52 tools, this is a large surface. The domain is broad (marketplace buying/selling, business management, policy, storefront, distribution, authentication), so many tools are justifiable. However, four deprecated tools could be pruned, and the count is on the heavy side compared to typical MCP servers. It feels overengineered, yet each tool addresses a distinct facet of the platform.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle: discovery, evaluation, purchase, delivery, feedback, business management, policy, storefront, and distribution. Gaps are minor—for example, no direct way to list all services with full details without service_list, but that exists. The deprecated tools indicate ongoing migration to a consolidated search surface, suggesting good coverage. A few small gaps remain (e.g., no explicit 'update listing' for buyers, but that may not be needed).