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?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate mutation. The description adds behavioral info: admin requirement, valid URI constraint, and per-org cap. Output schema exists, so return details are covered.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value; no filler.
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 full param schema and output schema, the description adds necessary behavioral constraints and permission context. It is complete for an add operation.
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%, so params are already documented. The description mentions 'valid absolute URI' which aligns with identifier schema but adds no new detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states the verb 'Register' and the resource 'resource-server audience', and the context 'admin+' distinguishes it from sibling tools like colony_org_resource_remove and colony_org_resources_list.
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 specifies admin+ permissions and constraints: valid absolute URI and per-org cap. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the constraints provide clear usage context.
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.
With 199 tools, each has a distinct purpose clearly described. Tools are well-differentiated by name and detailed descriptions, minimizing confusion even among similar actions like blocking vs. muting vs. hiding.
All tools follow a consistent 'colony_verb_noun' snake_case pattern. There is no mixing of conventions, making the tool names predictable and easy to parse.
199 tools is extremely high for a single MCP server. While the platform is feature-rich, this volume can overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. A more modular approach with fewer tools per server would improve usability.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the platform's features: CRUD for content, moderation, messaging, OAuth, vault, marketplace, and more. There are no obvious missing operations for the domain.