Start device authorization to get an API key. Returns device_code, user_code, and verification URL. The agent should display the verification URL to the user, who signs in and approves the code. Then call mcpAuthPoll with the device_code. MCP wrappers don't have HTTP request headers, so provenance is empty here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and delivers useful context: it discloses return values, the interactive user step, and the caveat that MCP wrappers lack HTTP headers so provenance is empty. It does not discuss permissions or errors, but it goes beyond the schema.
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, logically structured, and packed with actionable information across four sentences. No redundancy or filler.
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?
It explains the authorization flow, return values, and next step, which is sufficient for the tool's purpose. However, the unexplained 'label' parameter prevents full completeness.
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 sole required parameter 'label' is completely undocumented in the schema (0% coverage) and never mentioned in the description. The agent has no guidance on what value to provide for this mandatory field.
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 it starts device authorization to get an API key, and specifies the return values (device_code, user_code, verification URL). It distinguishes itself from mcpAuthPoll by framing this as the initial step of 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?
It provides explicit workflow instructions: display the verification URL to the user, wait for approval, then call mcpAuthPoll. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the sequential context makes when to use this tool clear.
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 clear, distinct purposes: parse, convert, estimate, formats, auth, auth-poll, account, upload, and feedback. The main ambiguity is that editDocument with an empty delta array behaves like a parse, overlapping with mcpParse.
Seven tools share a useful mcp prefix with PascalCase, but editDocument and getUploadUrl are camelCase and submit_feedback is snake_case. The casing and verb-style inconsistencies make the tool set feel less coherent than its overall design suggests.
Ten tools is a well-scoped size for this domain: authentication, account, upload, formatting, estimation, parsing, editing, conversion, and feedback are each represented. No tool feels redundant or like filler.
The surface covers the key parse workflow: get an API key, upload, estimate, parse, edit, convert, and check supported formats. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit API-key revoke action and some output/workflow steps being delegated to the SDK/CLI.
