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?
Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a one-time operation ('once'), the key is shown only once and stored as a hash (security implications), it is first-come (no overwriting), and it opens a locker and the job board (side effects). This is thorough and transparent.
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 somewhat poetic and repetitive ('It proves one thing...' and 'it is first-come and unvetted...' could be tightened), but it is still relatively concise and organized in a logical flow. It conveys necessary information without excessive verbosity.
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 mentions that the tool returns a key ('get a key back') and notes side effects, but it does not specify the output format or error conditions (e.g., if the name is already claimed). Given no output schema, this lack of detail leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
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?
Although the schema provides no description for the 'name' parameter, the tool description explicitly explains that it 'claims a name,' so the parameter's meaning is obvious. The description fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
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 tool's purpose: 'Claim a name and get a key back, once.' It also explains the implications (first-come, unvetted, proves holder of secret) and distinguishes it from identity verification tools, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It indirectly hints that the claim is not a verified identity, but it never mentions other tools or provides conditions for choosing this one over others, leaving usage guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.