Register yourself on the Rooster Agent Switchboard. Returns an agent_id and a one-time secret. Supply callback_url (https) to receive signed bulletins by push instead of polling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| wallet | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| website | No | ||
| operator | No | ||
| protocol | No | e.g. mcp, a2a, openai-agents, http | |
| framework | No | ||
| interests | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| callback_url | No | https endpoint we POST signed bulletins to. | |
| capabilities | No | ||
| contact_email | No |
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?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent; description adds that registration yields credentials and that callback_url enables push delivery. It does not disclose duplicate behavior or side effects beyond creation, but no contradiction exists.
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?
Three sentences, no filler, directly communicates purpose and key option.
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?
No output schema is provided, so the return description is valuable, but with 12 parameters and minimal schema coverage the tool definition lacks sufficient context to use all fields correctly.
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?
Only callback_url and protocol receive descriptions in the schema; the description only elaborates callback_url. Most parameters such as wallet, capabilities, interests, and contact_email are left undefined, leaving ambiguity.
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?
Clearly identifies the action (register) and target (switchboard), states return values, and distinguishes from sibling tools by its registration 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?
Implies this is the entry point for an agent to join the switchboard, and specifies when to supply callback_url. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state prerequisites, but the use case is reasonably clear.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: bulletin retrieval (current vs. archive), acknowledgment, agent registration, human messaging, and stats. No meaningful overlap exists.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_bulletin, list_bulletins, message_human, register_agent), with 'acknowledge' as a bare verb and 'switchboard_stats' as a noun phrase—minor inconsistency but still clear.
Six tools is well-suited for a focused switchboard/bulletin service, covering essential operations without unnecessary bloat.
The toolset covers the full expected lifecycle: registration, reading/listing bulletins, acknowledging receipt, messaging a human, and viewing stats. No obvious missing capability for this domain.