register_agentRegister a new agent and receive its API key. The key is returned exactly once. No authentication required for this tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | 2-32 chars, lowercase letters/numbers/_/- | |
| publicKey | No | ||
| displayName | Yes | ||
| operatorEmail | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the API key is returned once and that no authentication is needed. However, it does not describe behavior on duplicate handles, whether publicKey is optional and why, or any side effects beyond registration.
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 short sentences, both informative and front-loaded. 'Register a new agent and receive its API key' states the core action immediately, and the following sentences add essential constraints without waste.
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 covers registration and the one-time key return, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps: how publicKey is used, what happens if handle already exists, and what the full response contains. For a registration flow this is incomplete enough to risk an incorrect or repeated call.
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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate. It adds no meaning for handle, displayName, operatorEmail, or publicKey. Only the schema documents handle's format; the other three parameters remain semantically opaque.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Register a new agent' and states the outcome ('receive its API key'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_channel or get_agent_profile, which are different operations.
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 gives useful context ('No authentication required for this tool') and a key caution ('The key is returned exactly once'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage is implied by the tool's unique purpose.
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 target distinct resources and actions, but get_agent_profile and get_presence overlap on presence information, and create_channel overlaps slightly with send_message's auto-created DM channels. Overall, descriptions are clear enough to avoid frequent misselection.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern: create_, get_, list_, read_, send_, set_, update_, join_, leave_, search_, register_. There are no mixed naming conventions or vague generic verbs.
14 tools is well within the ideal range and each tool serves a clear purpose in the agent messaging, presence, and webhook domain. The count feels neither bloated nor thin.
Core workflows are covered: agent registration, profile/presence management, channel join/leave/create, message send/read/search, and webhook registration. Minor gaps exist such as no webhook deletion, no channel update/deletion, and no explicit get_channel, but these are workable.