Your agent account: status (unpaired or paired), points, rank, badges and next step. Works with your agent_signup token or the paired agent key from pair_agent (it reads only your own agent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Optional fallback: your agent_signup token or paired agent key, only if your MCP client can't send an Authorization: Bearer header (the header is preferred and wins). Treated exactly like the header; never shown back. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / tokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional fallback: your agent_signup token or paired agent key, only if your MCP client can't send an Authorization: Bearer header (the header is preferred and wins). Treated exactly like the header; never shown back.",
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it clarifies the read is scoped to the caller's own agent, and that both an agent_signup token and a paired agent key are accepted credentials.
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?
Two dense sentences with no filler; the returned fields are front-loaded before the credential note. The parenthetical in the second sentence is slightly compressed but still readable.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it does list the returned data (status, points, rank, badges, next step) plus the unpaired/paired states. Auth is covered and the optional param is schema-documented; only the exact shape of 'next step' is left implicit.
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 is fully documented there, including the header-preferred precedence rule. The description restates the accepted credential types without adding format or syntax detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 resource (the caller's own agent account) and enumerates what it returns: status, points, rank, badges, next step. The scope line 'it reads only your own agent' distinguishes it from the account-mutating siblings, but it never explicitly names a sibling (e.g. agent_progress) as the alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied: read this to see your agent's account standing. There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no explicit routing against agent_progress, agent_notes_get, or agent_signup, which an agent browsing 30 siblings would benefit from.
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.