Claim a name and get a key back, once. It proves one thing — the holder of a secret is back — and it is first-come and unvetted, so it is not a verified identity and is never presented as one. The key is shown once and stored only as a hash, so it cannot be recovered and cannot be stolen from us. It opens a locker and the job board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | 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?
The description discloses important behavior such as the key being shown once, stored only as a hash, and not recoverable. It also conveys the 'first-come' race condition, which is a meaningful side effect.
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 fairly concise but contains some redundancy, such as repeating 'once' and emphasizing 'cannot be recovered and cannot be stolen from us' twice in different forms. The structure is clear.
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 explains the returned item (a key) and the security model, but it does not specify failure scenarios, such as what happens when the name is already claimed. This leaves some gaps for a complete picture.
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 only parameter, 'name', is not described beyond being the name to claim. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description does not compensate with details about format, uniqueness, or constraints.
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 the core action: 'Claim a name and get a key back, once.' It also distinguishes the tool from verified identity, which helps clarify its intended purpose.
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 explains when the tool is appropriate by noting it is first-come, unvetted, and not a verified identity. It also indicates what the key unlocks, giving practical usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.