docs: say what the toolkit is, and that an account is required - #17
Merged
Conversation
Two gaps a cold reader walked into. The README never mentioned the MCP server or how the three pieces relate, so the CLI read as the entire product. And it said nothing about needing a Reply.io account: someone without one had no way to learn that `reply auth login` can create one, or that execution always runs against Reply.io rather than a local mode. Add the shared three-surface block, worded identically in all three repositories, and open Authentication with what the account buys and what this project is not.
ArtemKosolap
enabled auto-merge
August 3, 2026 20:51
vigubikReply
approved these changes
Aug 3, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
Two additions to the README:
source but not self-hosted.
Why
The toolkit was invisible from here. The README mentioned the MCP server zero times and never
explained how the CLI, MCP and the skill packs relate, so the CLI read as the entire product. The
shared block is worded identically in all three repositories — only the row for the current
repo differs, losing its link and gaining
(this repo). Three READMEs quietly drifting apart iswhat produced the gap; a verbatim block makes the next divergence visible on sight.
Nothing told a reader they need an account.
reply auth loginwas documented as a command,not as a decision. Someone without a Reply.io account had no way to learn from this README that
the login flow can create one, that the trial costs nothing, or — the one most likely to waste
their afternoon — that execution always runs against Reply.io and there is no local mode. The
CLI, the skills and the local tooling are genuinely free and open source; the account is what
buys mailboxes, sending, the contact store and analytics. Saying so up front is cheaper than
letting someone discover it after installing.
The wording deliberately says free trial rather than free tier: a trial is what exists today,
and promising the other would be a false promise with a two-week fuse.
Verification
Where this fitsis byte-identical to the block inreply-mcp, excluding the tworepo-specific rows — diffed, not eyeballed.
in public repositories; the MCP server is hosted by us, so it is described as hosted rather
than as something you could run yourself.
docs:triggers no release, and no command behaviour is claimed thatreply --helpdoes not already show.