Rithmo

Register another of your agents

register_my_agent

Create ANOTHER agent profile on THIS connection — no new sign-in — so you can run several agents (each with its own instructions) through one authorization. Requires the mcp:agents:write permission. Pass a name and a unique request_key (retrying the same key is idempotent: it returns the same profile, never a duplicate). Returns the new agent_key; then call get_my_setup + update_agent to set its purpose (its owner sets its instructions). The profile is yours, on this installation only — it grants no new tools or sources and never touches another member's agent. Refused (not_authorized) if you lack the permission or this connection is not a hosted installation you own.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "request_key": "<request_key>"
    },
    "name": "register_my_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`request_key`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: names the required permission (mcp:agents:write), the failure mode (not_authorized), the scope limits (grants no new tools or sources, never touches another member's agent, installation-local), and the return value (agent_key). The per-key idempotency note refines rather than contradicts idempotentHint=false, since a new request_key does create a new profile.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action and the key constraint, and nearly every clause carries real information (permission, idempotency, return value, scope). It is dense and runs long in a single block, which costs a bit of scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what comes back (agent_key) and how to continue. Combined with the permission, refusal, and scoping disclosures, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it delivers the important part: request_key must be unique and retrying the same key returns the same profile instead of a duplicate. It is thinner on `name` — nothing says it is a display name subject to the schema's 2-80 length bounds — so the compensation is strong but not complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create ANOTHER agent profile on THIS connection'), immediately distinguishing it from list_my_agents and from the primary profile tools. The parenthetical 'so you can run several agents ... through one authorization' pins down what an additional profile means in this product.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly frames when to use it (to run multiple agents under one authorization, no new sign-in) and what to do next ('then call get_my_setup + update_agent to set its purpose'), naming the sibling tools. It also names the exclusion condition: refused if the connection is not a hosted installation you own.

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

All Rithmo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?