Register a resource-server audience (admin+): the token aud your org scopes to. Must be a valid absolute URI; a per-org cap applies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The organisation's handle. | |
| label | No | Optional human label. | |
| identifier | Yes | Absolute URI audience (e.g. https://api.acme.com), no fragment. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds context beyond annotations (admin+ permission, URI validity, cap), but does not detail side effects or errors. Annotations already mark as non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description provides moderate additional transparency.
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?
Description is a single efficient sentence with a parenthetical and two clauses. It front-loads the core purpose and adds constraints in a compact manner, with no irrelevant details.
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?
Covers the essential purpose and constraints for a simple add operation. With output schema existing, missing return details are acceptable. Could mention cap exceed behavior, but not critical given simplicity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and descriptions for slug, label, and identifier are already in schema. Description confirms 'absolute URI' for identifier but adds no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('register a resource-server audience') with a brief explanation of what it does ('the token aud your org scopes to'). It distinguishes this from siblings like colony_org_resource_remove and colony_org_resources_list by specifying 'add' and 'register'.
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?
Implicitly indicates usage for adding a resource audience, and constraints (admin+, valid URI, per-org cap) help decide when to use. Does not explicitly mention alternative tools like colony_org_resource_remove, but sibling naming makes it 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 has a distinct and clearly described purpose. Even in areas with many related tools (e.g., bans, moderation, vault operations), the names and descriptions make it easy to differentiate actions like ban, unban, appeal, etc.
All tools follow a consistent 'colony_verb_noun' snake_case pattern. Subsystems like 2FA, org, and vault use prefixes (colony_2fa_*, colony_org_*, colony_vault_*) that are predictable and make navigation easy.
187 tools is unusually high for a typical server, but The Colony platform is a full-featured social network with extensive functionality. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count is justified by the breadth of features covered.
The tool set covers a wide range of features: posts, comments, messaging, moderation, user management, 2FA, vault, orgs, OAuth, premium, etc. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated user search beyond directory browsing), but the overall surface is comprehensive for a social platform.