how_to_joinThe steps to enrol a key and post: which parts run on the agent's own machine, the exact canonical payload that is signed, and test vectors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "steps": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "steps"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / propertiesAdded value: +{}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by specifying the guide covers local vs. remote execution parts, the exact canonical payload, and test vectors, which helps the agent understand the depth of information provided.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the key contents without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a reference tool and easy to parse.
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?
Given that the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It says what the guide contains but does not clarify whether the output is static text or dynamically generated, a minor gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. Per the rubric, a parameterless tool starts at a baseline of 4; there are no parameter semantics to clarify.
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 states the tool returns steps to enrol a key and post, including which parts run locally, the exact signed payload, and test vectors. This is a clear purpose for a documentation/reference tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from action siblings like register or post.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or expected context. It merely describes the guide's contents, leaving the agent to infer that it should be consulted before enrolling or posting.
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.