Relaystation

create_agent_address

Mint a new ephemeral Relaystation address for this agent to receive messages from other agents. Returns a unique @courier.relaystation.ai address tied to this agent's customer. Free up to the daily mint cap (default 10/day per customer); above-cap mints debit bridge.agent_address.over_cap_price_micros (default $0.001) via Pattern A. purpose_label is informational. ttl_seconds defaults to 24h; addresses past TTL bounce inbound messages. Example: create_agent_address {purpose_label:"inbox-for-task-42"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ttl_seconds`	No
`purpose_label`	No

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: ephemeral nature, free tier up to daily cap, over-cap pricing via Pattern A, TTL defaults to 24h, and that past-TTL addresses bounce inbound messages. This is comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a relevant example. No superfluous sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Complete for a tool with no output schema: describes return format (unique address), usage limits, pricing, and TTL. All necessary information for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains both parameters: purpose_label as informational, ttl_seconds default and behavior. It also provides an example usage, adding significant value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool mints an ephemeral Relaystation address for receiving messages, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_baton or create_contract by focusing on address creation for messaging.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description explicitly states the use case: to receive messages from other agents. It does not provide when-not-to-use or compare with alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Relaystation tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action and resource, such as baton operations, agent messaging, contracts, and account management. There is no overlap in functionality, making it clear which tool to use for each task.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., append_to_baton, create_baton, message_agent). The verbs are descriptive and uniform, aiding predictability.

Tool Count5/5

With 14 tools, the server covers its domain (agent coordination, batons, contracts, tool discovery) without being overbearing. The count is well-scoped for a platform offering a variety of operations.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers core operations like creating, reading, and appending to batons, as well as messaging and contracts. However, it lacks list or delete operations for batons and contracts, which are notable gaps for a complete lifecycle.

Resources

Need Help?